Jakarta – Activists and animal lovers who are members of Dog Meat Free Indonesia (DMFI) held a demonstration at the House of Representatives (DPR) on Tuesday November 21 after the lawmakers rejected a Draft Law on the Prohibition of Violence against Domestic Animals and the Prohibition on Trading Dog and Cat Meat.
During the action, they criticised a statement by a member of the DPR's Legislative Body (Baleg) from the Golkar Party faction, Firman Soebagyo, who said that the bill was not important. According to the DMFI, the statement does not make any sense.
"We read in the media that from Baleg, one of the members said that it's not needed, just remove it, it's not important. Then he said that they had to protect [dog and cat meat] consumers and traders, which, right, it doesn't make sense", said action coordinator Karin Franken at the demonstration.
The DMFI is a national and international animal protection organisation consisting of the Jakarta Animal Aid Network (JAAN Domestic Indonesia), Jogja Animal Friends and the International Humane Society.
Franken, who is also the coordinator of JAAM Domestic Indonesia, said that the number of dog meat consumers in Indonesia is only 4.5 percent of the population. According to Franken, Soebagyo's arguments do not make sense as a reason to reject the bill.
"It's like this at the moment, 4.5 percent of the community, perhaps there are people who eat dog or cat meat, yes, but the rest don't", she said.
According to Franken, the DMFI has conducted a community survey related to the rules on prohibiting the trade and consumption of dog meat. The result was that 95 percent of people agree with the prohibition.
Meanwhile, DMFI Legal and Advocacy Manager Adrian Hane said that they suspect that Soebagyo was worried that the draft law being promoted by the DMFI might be included in the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas).
Yet the proposal was based on scientific facts and this was also explained during a Baleg meeting on Monday November 11.
"There was a sociological study. There were also opinions from experts. From specialists. There were animal doctors. There were legal people. There were sociologists. We presented all of them there. So it was comprehensive. There was a policy brief that we give them about why this must be urgent. But it turns out, yes, this was dismissed", said Hane. (thr/dmi)
[Translated by James Balowski. The original title of the article was "RUU Larangan Konsumsi Daging Anjing Ditolak, Pecinta Hewan Geruduk DPR".]
