Senaka Weeraratna 

A Book entitled ‘ A Comparative Study – Animal Welfare Bill Proposed by the Law Commission (2006) and the

Animal Welfare Bill as Amended (2022) by Senaka Weeraratna,  Attorney-at-Law, was launched at the Public Library, Colombo on Monday, August 07, 2023

A picture of the participants at the Press Conference conducted by the Coalition for a Pro Animal Protection Act for Sri Lanka held at the Public Library, Colombo on August 07, 2023.

This book was launched at this Press Conference. 

Contents

Introduction                                                                                                    4

Sum-Up of My Observations on the 2022 Version                                        6

Annexure 1. The History and Current Status of the 2022 Draft Act             10

Annexure 2: Factual Details of My Observations on the 2022 Version        13     

          Part I:  Chapters I-IV – Clauses 1-26                               13

          Part II:  Clause 27                                                           26

          Part III: Clauses 28-45                                                    31

Conclusion                                                                                                     34

Introduction

The Law Commission of Sri Lanka, responding to growing public demands invited representations from the public, conducted hearings, and thereafter had a comprehensive Draft Animal Welfare Act prepared (2000 – 2006).  Altogether there were over 70 submissions, both oral and written from individuals and Associations. The laws of other jurisdictions were also examined.

In my capacity as an Honorary Legal Consultant to the Law Commission on Animal Welfare Legislation, I steered this project in addition to drafting the new Animal Welfare Act (hereinafter called the Animal Welfare Bill”) at the invitation and under the supervision of the Law Commission. The goal was to replace the antiquated Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No. 13 of 1907 with a new statute and remedy several deficiencies in other pieces of legislation relating to Animals and Animal Welfare.

The Animal Welfare Bill proposed by the Law Commission and handed to the then President, Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa in June 2006, was a comprehensive document. Upon enactment, it was felt that it would set the standard for other countries, particularly in Asia to adopt. Unfortunately, the Bill has had an uneasy ride over the last 17 years largely owing to the opposition of people with vested interests.

It has reappeared in a new incarnation in the year 2022 as a Bill of Parliament with many of the outstanding features that made the 2006 draft Animal Welfare Bill admirable and highly valued, discarded. Today, the Bill (2022 Version) is at the penultimate stage of its passage. Some of the content is draconian. It has fallen short in critical areas vis-à-vis the original Animal Welfare Bill, henceforth referred to as the 2006 Version. The potential of creating room for possible committing of greater harm to a wider number of animals through misinterpretation and misconstruction of words, though not conceived at the time of drafting, is very high and alarming.

The history and status of the Animal Welfare Bill, providing comprehensive background information vital to a better understanding of the issues we are raising, is in Annexure 1.

The moral challenge for the people of Sri Lanka is to either give effect to the long-suppressed voice of the voiceless animals via an effective piece of Animal Welfare legislation or accommodate the demands of those who see animals in an entirely different light i.e., as fit only for abuse and exploitation for profit, and thereby belying the noble purpose of the Animal Welfare Bill

Sum-up of My Observations on the 2022 Version

1.     The need for modern legislation to govern Animal Welfare in Sri Lanka can no longer be disregarded or brushed aside. This proposed Animal Welfare Act bereft of an up-to-date legal framework containing modern standards on Animal Welfare, if passed, will be a source of shame and national embarrassment, as well as a slur on Sri Lanka’s International image.

2.     A Bill (2006 version) that had the input and scrutiny of about 15 senior lawyers being members of the Law Commission of Sri Lanka plus consideration of submissions both oral and written from the public i.e., over 70 individuals and Associations, and examination of laws of other Jurisdictions, during the drafting stage with Animal Welfare as its only focus, unfortunately, has had a few people representing vested interests exploiting animals, changing/adding/deleting key Clauses over the years to primarily provide trade benefits over and above the welfare of the animals. This uncalled-for interference is causing serious disfigurement to a well-planned and well-drafted Animal Welfare Bill (2006) that would have won the hearts and minds of civilized people anywhere in the world. The recent changes (2022) contain contradictions and ambiguities that will render most acts of cruelty to animals not legally definable and furthermore will obstruct State and public rescue operations to save threatened animals or animals in danger difficult.

3.     A Bill that is in the process of being enacted to replace an archaic 1907 Ordinance, nevertheless, retains the applicability of the 1893 Butcher’s Ordinance with all its obnoxious and medieval methods of slaughter without consideration of bringing any improvement to the welfare of the animals at the time of passage in the slaughterhouse and time of slaughter.

4.     Clause 18 is the ugly duckling of the entire Animal Welfare Bill (2022). It is tantamount to a blatant negation of the right to protection for all animals that is usually at the heart of credible Animal Welfare legislation in any part of the world.  In the 2022 version, the AWB guarantees at the commencement of the legislation the right to protection of all animals but with a sleight of hand excludes certain species of animals, including both quadrupeds and bipeds, which are of economic value from such protection. 

5.     Clause 18 with sub-clauses (a-g and h incorporated as recently as on 20^th June 2023 with trade benefits and profits in mind for business houses, allows selected Animals despite being ‘sentient beings’ to be treated as inanimate objects or chattels contradicting the Act’s own definition of Animal” and subverting its own Objects. This is unconscionable and immoral as, for example, Chicken is excluded from the welfare provisions of the Draft Act.

6.     Clause 18 prohibits farm animals and live animals that are being used in experiments and teaching from gaining the protection of this Act and has added yet another sub-clause (h) to include Poultry as a food product to Clause 18 as recently as 20^th June 2023, purely for trade and economic benefits. The welfare of the animal is being sacrificed in the rush to accommodate the meat trade in these provisions. All this defeats the primary purpose of this Act, as Poultry (fowls, hens) are also animals, and their welfare is entitled to protection under the draft Act. 

7.     Clauses 1-17 mostly deal with the refinement of the language used in the provisions and the increase in the quantum of fines and jail terms.

8.     Clause 18 (e) says that the draft Act does not apply to the use of animals for testing of drugs or cosmetics in accordance with the prescribed procedure”. This provision is morally indefensible and glaringly contradictory to another identically worded provision. In one provision of the Act (Clause 12) the use of live animals is prohibited, adding a rider qualifier that was not there in the 2006 version – unless it is for prescribed purposes.” and in this Clause, it is allowed without any prohibition or qualifier. In fact, this Act will not protect these live animals. These two provisions, Clause 12 and Clause 18 (e) mutually contradict each other and if kept as they are in this manner, they will bring the 2022 Act to ridicule and disrepute. Chapter III which deals exclusively with ‘Use of live animals for Experimental and Teaching Purposes’ is rendered redundant as Clause 18 (e) prohibits the application of the draft Act to use of animals for testing of drugs or cosmetics in accordance with the prescribed procedure”. These blatant contradictions make a mockery of the Draft Act. Regulation 43 (1) (i) also deals with this subject which will be redundant by virtue of Clause 18 (e).

9.     The word ‘Pests’ in Clause 41, raises new animal welfare concerns. ‘Pests’ back in the 2006 Bill were meant to be interpreted as ‘insects’ but never as bipeds or quadrupeds. The looming danger is that the term ‘Pests’ may provide a loophole for stretching the interpretation to include a whole range of other animals e.g., wild animals, stray cats, and dogs. This is alarming.

10. The provision for establishing an Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in place of a National Animal Welfare Authority as proposed in the 2006 Bill is another drawback. Drafting of legislation must be strict and not leave room for favourites of the framers of the legislation to creep in through the backdoor via an extended interpretation of a provision drafted for such purpose. Clause 27 (1) (b) (i) is one such disgraceful provision. In other provisions, suitable people involved in a particular field are acceptable for nomination to this Committee. In this sub-clause, the language used is ‘actively engaged in animal welfare’. This is an insult to all veterinarians as they are all engaged in the rendering of services to animals. The Act’s own interpretation of Animal Welfare Officer” means all Government Veterinary Surgeons.

11.  Animal Welfare Advisory Committee — Clause 27 (Part II) of the AWB (2022) is an extended and lengthy provision devoted exclusively to the subject matter of the ‘Establishment of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’ and related aspects.

It is when one looks closely at the composition of the Advisory Committee and the basis of its duties in an Advisory capacity to the Minister that the sinister Agenda underlying the AWB (2022) is laid bare.

Using a hackneyed idiom, the framers have ‘let the cat out of the bag’ in composing Clause 27. Its unbalanced nature, one-sidedness, and bias in favour of vested interests that unabashedly exploit animals in the food industry, pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, and laboratory sciences, are abundantly made clear. In comparison to the content of the 2006 version of AWB relating to the composition of the Authority and its functions (Part II) (Clause 3 -13), the 2022 version has downsized and circumscribed the work of the Advisory Committee.

In a glaring display of partisanship, the room is provided for the Advisory Committee to be packed with members representing the ‘users of animals for consumption and trade’ rather than the ‘carers’ and ‘voices’ for animals. The 2006 version allowed six members nominated by Animal Welfare Societies to be on the Committee of the Authority. This number has been reduced to just two members on the Advisory Committee in the 2022 version.

In the 2006 version the functions of the Authority in favour of the uplift of the cause of animals extended to 24 items in number (Part III – Clause 14 (a) – 14 (u)). These 24 lines of pursuit as set out were ennobling and dignified reflecting the historical and civilizational character of Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, this high-minded endeavour has been thwarted and the number of advisory functions has been reduced drastically to three (3) in the 2022 version while one function (outside these three) is to advise the Minister ‘on any matter relating to laboratory facilities for experiments on animals.’ There was no such function allocated to the Authority in the 2006 version.

Furthermore, the Poultry and Livestock Industries have been allowed to be represented by two members on the Advisory Committee being the same number (two) of representation provided to the Animal Welfare Societies in a draft statute dedicated to the welfare of animals.

The exclusivity of representation sought by vested interests on the Advisory Committee is such that even ‘an Ayurvedic Physician with experience in treating animals nominated by the Ayurvedic Medical Council’ (proposed in the 2006 version) has been dropped in the 2022 version of the draft Animal Welfare Act.

Concluding Remarks: The entire Animal Welfare Bill proposed by the Law Commission in 2006 has been hijacked by the Meat trade and its acolytes and converted into an AWB (2022) protecting not the innocent animals but more the interests of the Poultry and Meat trade, and those who use live Animals in totally unnecessary experiments despite the availability of viable non-violent and harmless alternatives.

Can the friends of voiceless animals remain silent in the face of enactment of a bad piece of draft legislation to be incredulously called the ‘Animal Welfare Act’ upon enactment?

Annexure 1

The History and Current Status

of the 2022 Draft Act

History

1.      Mr. Senaka Weeraratna, Attorney-at-Law, upon the invitation of the then Chairman of the Law Commission, Justice A.R.B. Amerasinghe delivered a talk on ‘The Requirement for New Animal Welfare Legislation in Sri Lanka” to the members of the Law Commission, Senior Government Officials, and members of Animal Welfare Societies in the Board Room of the Law Commission on February 01, 2000. This talk highlighted the need to consider reviewing the laws relating to the welfare of animals in Sri Lanka as they were archaic and obsolete and were in need of urgent reforms.

2.      The very next day Mr. Weeraratna received a hand-delivered letter to his residence from Dr. A.R.B. Amerasinghe saying that the Law Commission had decided to pursue work in relation to repealing the archaic Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, No. 13 of 1907, and replacing it with an Animal Welfare Act and offered Mr. Weeraratna a position on the Law Commission staff as an (Honorary) Legal Consultant on Animal Welfare legislation with a clear mandate to draft a new Animal Welfare Act for the consideration of the members of the Law Commission.  

3.      Justice Dr. A R B Amerasinghe at the same time directed Ms. Lakshmi Gunasekera, Secretary, Law Commission of Sri Lanka to include Animal Welfare Laws in the Program of Work of the Law Commission of Sri Lanka for the period 2000 to 2004 and also in the Annual Report of 2002 to be submitted to the Minister of Justice, Law Reforms, Buddha Sasana and National Integration to be laid before Parliament.

4.      Mr. Anande Amaraweera, Attorney- at- Law, and Assistant Secretary of the Law Commission was seconded to assist Mr. Weeraratna.

5.      Mr. Weeraratna over a period of 6 years (2000 – 2006) drafted and steered the completion of the Project while being in consultation with the Public and Animal Welfare Societies.  The draft of the AWB was read and reviewed six times (six versions) by the Law Commissioners before it was finally given approval by the Law Commission. A team comprising the Minister of Justice Hon. Amarasiri Dodangoda, Professor (Dr.) Lakshman Marasinghe (then Chairman, Law Commission) and Ms. Lakshmi Gunasekera, Secretary, Law Commission handed over to President Mahinda Rajapaksa the Animal Welfare Bill proposed by the Law Commission, in June 2006. The Law Commission Report accompanying the AWB singularly acknowledged the vital role of Mr. Senaka Weeraratna in the project. 

6.      When the AW Bill of 2006 was not enacted soon enough and was being foot dragged, Hon. Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thero, MP, tabled it in Parliament in 2010 as a Private Member’s Bill. It reproduced verbatim the Animal Welfare Bill proposed by the Law Commission in 2006 almost word to word.  

7.      But the Parliament was dissolved soon after in the same year resulting in the lapse of the AW Bill. AWT (Animal Welfare Trust) lobbied for the expeditious enactment and in protest over the delay. 

8.      The AWT together with several religious and animal welfare organizations filed a writ application in the Court of Appeal in 2010 seeking a court order directing the relevant Govt. authorities to adopt measures to implement the laws pertaining to animal welfare and to amend the laws for the better protection of animals.

9.      In March 2015 the AW Bill was submitted to Cabinet by the then Minister of Social Services, Welfare and Livestock Development (Hon. P. Harrison).

10.  The AWT then went to Courts and the Courts appointed a Select Committee. 

11.  On January 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal directed the Respondents including the Minister of Livestock & Animal Welfare to facilitate the enactment of the Animal Welfare Bill expeditiously and forthwith.

12.   The failure to make headway to enact either the Law Commission AW Bill (2006) or the Private Member’s Animal Welfare Bill of Parliament (2010) has been largely due to the lack of political will on the part of the lawmakers in Sri Lanka to support the placement of a new humane Animal Welfare Act on the Statute Book.

The Current Status of the Draft Act of 2022

A substantially amended AW Bill far removed from the Law Commission 2006 version in both direction and values embracing animal welfare, was gazetted on February 07, 2022.  It was presented to the Parliament by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture on March 24, 2022.

Chronology

1.  The 1st reading in Parliament was done on March 24, 2022.

2.  The 2nd reading which began in June 2022 is in progress. The critical debate in Parliament and the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee has yet to take place.  

3.  In 2023, the Hon. Mr. Udaya Gammanpila, MP, and leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya, took an initiative by coming forward to expedite the enactment of the Bill and now heads a Parliamentary Caucus for Animal Welfare.  

4.  Mr. Gammanpila convened a meeting on 7th June 2023 inviting MPs and AWs, but excluding the signatories who are key stakeholders, including Mr. Senaka Weeraratna who was largely instrumental in drafting the Law Commission-sponsored Animal Welfare Bill of 2006.

5.  At this meeting an amendment was introduced and agreed upon and it was decided to not go back to the attendant legal procedures after an amendment is made to any Bill, on grounds of the need to avoid further delays.

6.  On 20th June 2023 the Caucus met again, and three more amendments were proposed by the non-animal welfare parties, who it is reliably understood, are demanding further amendments to be made to the draft Animal Welfare Act (2022 version).

Some Excerpts

Clause 18 (2022) – Provisions relating to Offences not to apply for certain acts.

*Clause 18 – Newly introduced in the 2022 Version. No counterpart in the 2006 version.

*Mutually Contradictory Clauses repeated verbatim. Undermines the Act’s Very Purpose and Objects – Animal Welfare.

*No one should have a Constitutional right to destroy or sacrifice an animal in the name of any Religion.

*Making concessions in an Animal Welfare Bill on fundamental premises including allowing 5th Century methods of slaughter to prevail when developed countries are introducing modern methods/standards of slaughter to minimize suffering caused to the victim, weakens the moral basis of an Animal Welfare legislation as has been done to Sri Lanka’s AWB of 2022.

*The ‘halal’ method of slaughter based on 5th-century medieval practice in Arabia is called (in Islamic law) ‘dhabijah’. It comprises a swift, deep incision to the throat with a very sharp knife cutting the windpipe, jugular veins, and carotid arteries on both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact. This method of slaughter is being increasingly prohibited and sidelined all over the world including some Muslim countries because scientific studies have unfailingly shown that it (halal) causes immense suffering to the animal by way of cutting the neck and bleeding the animal to death. Stunning the animal prior to slaughter is the scientifically recommended modern (humane) method.

*The Protection of Animals at the time of slaughter is unaddressed in the AW Bill of 2022. No effort has been made in this draft Act (2022) to introduce measures to improve conditions in slaughterhouses in Sri Lanka, which are appalling, to say the least. In contrast, in Spain, slaughterhouses are required by law to install video surveillance to ensure animals are not mistreated before being killed. England, Scotland, and Israel have already introduced the measure in their abattoirs. These surveillance measures by installing CCTV video playback cameras are expected to ensure the welfare of animals during their passage through abattoirs.  It would also strengthen food safety guarantees.  Israel has a particularly effective system where all footage recorded in a slaughterhouse is transferred live to the Ministry of Agriculture, which acts as a strong crime deterrent. 

* IMPORTANT: Compare Clause 18 in 2022 Version vis-a-vis Clauses 37 and 38 in 2006 Version

Clause 37 and 38 (given below for easy reference to compare) are not included in the 2022 version and have been replaced with a new Exemption Clause, i.e., Clause 18, exempting animals that generate economic profits and animals subjected to live testing experiments, etc. from the protection of this AWB.

The provisions of Clause 38 are based on similar provisions in UK legislation introduced in 1999. @ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/400/made

The English Legislation – The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) Regulations 1999

States as follows:

Prohibition against slaughter by a religious method elsewhere than in a slaughterhouse

No person shall slaughter any animal by a religious method, or cause or permit any animal to be so slaughtered, elsewhere than in a slaughterhouse licensed under regulation 4 of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995(4).”

The purpose of Clause 38 in the 2006 version was to ban Home Slaughter and ensure that only persons certified as Competent with a Certificate of Competence issued or recognized by an Authority would carry out the slaughter in a registered abattoir and not in a private dwelling house in a residential area or place of business or a public place. 

“Public place” has been defined as ‘for the purposes of this section includes any way, road, lane, square, court, alley, passage or open space whether a thoroughfare or not and any building to which the general public have access.’

FOR REFERENCE: AW Bill of 2006 – Clauses 37 and 38

37. (1) No person shall slaughter, or cause or permit to be slaughtered –

(a) any buffalo; or

(b) any cow, unless that cow is certified by a government Veterinary Surgeon or a Veterinary Surgeon employed by any local authority,

to be –

(i)                not less than twelve years of age, or

(ii)              incapable of breeding, or

(iii)            unfit to be used for any agricultural purpose.

2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offense and shall upon conviction after a trial by a Magistrate be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees or to imprisonment for a term of one year or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Comment: The above provision (Clause 37) is identical to Section 2 of the Animals Act, No.29 of 1958 except that ‘buffalo’ has been added for protection like the cow. See Clause 37 (1) (a) above.

38. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law with regard to the grant of licenses for the slaughter of any quadruped, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered a quadruped in a private dwelling house in a residential area or a place of business or a public place.

(2) No person shall slaughter any quadruped where the meat or any part of the carcass of the quadruped is meant to be sold or distributed for any purpose whatever unless such person holds a certificate of competence in the slaughter of animals issued or recognized by the Authority.

(3) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall upon conviction after a trial before a Magistrate, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment.

“public place” for the purposes of this section includes any way, road, lane, square, court, alley, passage, or open space whether a thoroughfare or not, and any building to which the general public has access.

 Poultry: 

The Poultry industry poses many threats to humans, environmental health, and the chickens themselves.

Animal Welfare Issues

 The Poultry industry places the interest of consumers and their trade and profit above the animals themselves. Animal welfare issues, such as high stocking densities, the deprivation of adequate living space, painful mutilations, damage to the body parts of the chicken, and cruel slaughter methods, blight the industry. Chickens are among the most abused animals on earth, subjected at every stage of their lives to some of the most inhumane treatment of any factory-farmed animal.

                                                                                       

Abuse of Chickens – some examples

a)      Live Shackle Slaughter: A common method of killing factory-farmed chickens is known as live shackle slaughter. The Chickens are hung upside down, and their legs are forced into metal stirrups, which often results in broken bones. Chickens are then forced through an electrified bath of water meant to make them lose consciousness prior to slitting their throats and their bodies thrown into boiling water meant to de-feather them. Chickens that manage to avoid the stunning electrified water remain conscious during the subsequent steps of this inhumane slaughter process.

b)     Forced Molting: Forced Molting is an inhumane treatment that layer hens are forced to endure. The process begins when the birds are about one-year-old before they are sent to the slaughterhouse. Forced molting requires the starving of hens of food and water, which can last anywhere from seven to 28 days. The process is meant to force the hen’s body to produce as many eggs as possible before they are killed. While still commonplace in many countries, forced molting is now treated as so cruel that many regions have banned the practice. In any Animal Welfare legislation that places the welfare of the animal as paramount, the abuse of chicken in the Poultry industry in Sri Lanka must be investigated and strict checks introduced to ensure minimum standards of humane treatment.

c)      Battery Cages: Battery cages are normally used in egg production facilities. Battery cages are designed to allow each bird roughly the same amount of space as a piece of lined paper; birds are prevented from running, walking more than a few steps, and even fully stretching their wings. Hens are also denied from engaging in normal behaviour due to close confinement—resulting in psychological harm.

d)      Debeaking: Debeaking, or beak trimming, requires the removal of portions of a chicken’s beak. This procedure is adopted when chicks are only a few hours old, and done without anesthesia, and is thought to inflict chronic pain throughout the bird’s life. The purpose of Debeaking is to prevent chickens from pecking at one another, a behavior that arises due to the typical close confinement conditions in factory farms. Egg-laying hens are typically debeaked, but the cruel operation is also performed on broiler chickens.

e)      Genetic Manipulation: Chickens usually lay about 10 eggs per year. But however, through genetic manipulation and selective breeding, layer hens bred in factory farms are now able to lay upwards of 300 eggs per year. This excessive production of eggs has a huge adverse impact on hens’ bodies. They tend to develop osteoporosis, tumors, uterine prolapse, and other painful and often lethal conditions.

Comment 

        All aspects of the breeding of poultry including Battery Hens must be subjected to regulations and treatment upholding minimum standards as defined in modern legislation governing animal welfare. These aspects must come under the purview of the Animal Welfare Act. 

Poultry = chicken/hen = animal –must come within the definition of ‘animal’ in the Act.  No animal can be excluded from the welfare provisions of the Act.

Such exemption would connote Cherry Picking” of animals for the benefit of outsiders and therefore the Act will not be considered as true to its Vision, Purposes, and Objects.  

 Conclusion

The Animal Welfare Bill proposed by the Law Commission in 2006 (and verbatim reproduced in the Private Members Bill tabled by Ven. Athureliya Rathana Thera, in Parliament, in October 2010) has been hijacked by the Meat Trade and its collaborators and converted into an Animal Welfare Bill (2022) protecting not the innocent animals but the interests of the Poultry and Meat trade, and those who use live Animals in totally unnecessary experiments despite the availability of viable non-violent and harmless suitable alternatives.

The Animal Welfare Bill (2006) introduced a robust legal framework and powers for protecting all animals. It was destined to become an International Gold Standard at least for countries in Asia.

How we treat animals, and the legislation we must have to govern animal welfare, is a hallmark of a civilized society. Animals have always enjoyed a high priority status in our pre-colonial civilization running for over 2, 500 years. That has always been a source of pride for this nation and drew a lot of respect from the neighbouring countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia. In ancient times the inhabitants of Sri Lanka i.e., the Buddhist Sinhalese, were called the ‘Arya Vamsa’  (people of noble character) because of our caring and compassionate attitudes towards non–human living beings. This hallowed tradition should be continued.

Today, we should be constantly looking to improve and refine our legislation in the area of animal welfare. It is a moral duty.

The Animal Welfare Bill of Sri Lanka (2022) with its inhumane and draconian amendments enshrines ‘Cruelty’ within a facade of a legal framework. It is a retrograde step. A slur on Sri Lanka’s image. It must not be enacted in Parliament. 

The Animal Welfare Bill of Ven. Athureliya Rathana Thera, MP, introduced in Parliament as a Private Members Bill, in October 2010 provides the precedent and way forward for enacting a true animal-friendly ‘ Animal Welfare Bill ‘ for Sri Lanka. 

Senaka Weeraratna