On June 15 at the magistrate's court in Banting, Selangor, a handcuffed man was led to the dock. Had the defendant been accused of a serious crime like robbery, assault or rape? Nooooo, none of the above.

Yet the handcuffs and escorts seemed to imply that there was a dangerous menace to society. All of which leads you to wonder as to the nature of salesman Chong Foo Meng's crime.

Well, it appears that his dog had bitten a boy in Puchong rather severely. Newspaper reports said Chong was charged under Section 298 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum six months jail upon conviction.

I understand that handcuffs are only clapped on those charged with non-bailable offences, and this procedure comes under the discretionary administrative orders issued by the Inspector-General of Police [Act 344, Police Act 1967, Standing Orders Part XIV (97)].

Chong was given bail at RM2,000 in one surety and his trial is set for Aug 30 at the Sepang Magistrate's Court. Chong had surrendered at the Sepang police station earlier on March 22. In a follow-up action, the Sepang District Council initiated a six-month freeze on applications for dog licences, including renewals.

So what gives? Why was a man who would be eligible for bail (i.e. his offence was bailable) taken to court in handcuffs?

And Chong's dogs? Well, Bernama reported on June 15 that they had been held at the Sepang police station. After reading the recent Royal Commission on police inquiry, where it was revealed that human detainees are treated none too royally, I shudder at the fate of mere dogs.

It is a small consolation that the court had, the same day, approved the transfer of the dogs to the Sepang Veterinary Services Department.

Dog bites boy, wheel attacks man

Chong was charged for negligence in failing "to take adequate precautions to ensure his dogs did not pose any danger to human life or cause serious injury".

I can recall a somewhat parallel case where someone somewhere failed to take adequate precaution to ensure that no danger to human life or threat of serious injury was posed to an unwitting member of the public.

In the parallel case, which I shall refer to as the Attack of the Flying Wheel, I certainly don't recall anyone being led to court in handcuffs for alleged criminal negligence.

On Aug 16, 2002 along Jalan Sultan Ismail in Kuala Lumpur, senior Bernama journalist David Chelliah was crossing the road while overhead, the KL Monorail was being taken on a test run.

One the monorail's safety wheel, weighing precisely 13.4kg, decided at that precise moment to "Up, up and away Wheeeeee!"

The flyaway wheel then coshed David on the noggin and knocked him out. I don't remember police arresting the monorail owner.

In any event, David filed a whopping civil suit against the monorail company for "failing to take precautions to ensure that the train was safe for use in a public place".

According to newspaper reports, David also claimed that in addition to his "severe head and bodily injuries", he had also to undergo surgery to remove a blood clot in his head.

On the other side of the fence, Monorail Technology and KL Monorail Systems, in their statement of defence, claimed that David's injury "was caused wholly or partly by his own negligence and that he was jaywalking when he crossed that section of the road".

Counsel Tunku Farid Ismail, for the defendants, said there was no evidence of serious injuries suffered..

My point here is that in the Attack of the Flying Wheel case, we heard two sides of the story: "He said, They said". Not so with Dog bites Boy though.

Media gnashes teeth

From the reams of copy following the Dog Bites Boy incident, we learnt that the lad had been showered with overflowing sympathy, including visits in hospital by a number of Umno politikus as well as First Son-in-Law and Pemuda Umno luminary Khairy Jamaluddin.

The incident has encouraged even more vociferous calls for a ban on certain breeds of dogs. Who knows how widely the ban list may eventually extend.

Doubtless, the Barisan Nasional political appointees who are our city and municipal councillors will further shorten the leash on laws governing pet ownership. And regretfully, although all pets are created equal, some are more equal than others in Cronesia.

So we can look forward to more and more NoDoggia zones and the 'flubby' long arm of the law reaching out to nab errant dog owners.

Never mind that our law enforcers can't bring to book anything more than a token number of the fearless snatch thieves.

And let's forget about arresting armed and dangerous criminals like the one who, just recently on June 14, held up United Nations Development Programme resident representative Dr Richard Leete and family outside Bangsar shopping complex and drove off with a BMW X5.

Never mind too that our municipal councillors - a bunch of office bearers not elected by you or I - seem to be doing nothing about the jaga kereta thugs and other criminal elements (like the ones stealing manhole covers) that continue plague us. There are always the dog owners to catch, what?

For example, walk your dog in a public place where 'No Dogs Allowed' - and this warning is simply ubiquitous in the Klang Valley - and you could spend up to a YEAR in jail on top of paying a maximum RM2,000 fine under the Local Government Act 1971.

As we can see (photo), the Petaling Jaya municipal council (MPPJ) under its Section 4(b) of Park By-laws (MPPJ) 1982, is not reticent in imposing the maximum penalty upon dogwalkers.

Barking up the wrong tree

If the thought of jail is daunting, societal pressure can be just as bad. Chong reportedly had felt the need to move out of his Puchong neighbourhood after his dogs misbehaved, possibly after they were provoked.

Actually, if some of Cronesia's last action heroes (such as the Selayang anti-dog squad petitioning for stricter legislation) had their way, you might in future see dogs only in petting zoos.

After all, the way things are going, the dog is on the road to being not seen, much less heard, in public.

Selangor Menteri Besar Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo has said: "We don't want to wait till another incident happens when someone is bitten and hospitalised before we take action... (Earlier) I had already imposed conditions that dogs must be muzzled when they leave the house."

Hmmm, I can think of another category that should be muzzled when they leave the house to spare us long-suffering taxpayers their blinking bright ideas.

But still we've got to admire the dogged determination of the Subang Jaya municipal council (MPSJ) that seems to have adopted as its motto "if at first you don't succeed, then try and try again".

After its aborted diktat to "get written permission from your neighbours - back and front, left, right and centre - before we allow you to keep dogs", MPSJ has taken another tack.

The council, doubtless eagerly looked to to take the lead by its evil twins in MPPJ, MPSA (Shah Alam), Selayang and other districts, recently proposed that before obtaining a dog licence, a houseowner has to first take a pet ownership course.

On the surface, it may appear that MPSJ harbours only noble intentions behind this scheme but I wouldn't be too sure. Will this move with one bold stroke give council officials arbitrary powers to pass or fail course participants?

If the course components are to be conducted in Bahasa Melayu, those not familiar with or illiterate in the national language will be getting a taste of the same entrenched 'civil' service familiar to many in their dealings with bureaucracy.

And such a pet ownership course is surely a highly subjective enterprise. Will this throw open the doors to paw-greasing by distraught dogs owners fearing that they will be forcibly parted from their beloved canine companions should they fail the course?

Though we are mighty curious to know how much the course will hurt our pocket, more interestingly, let's ask who pockets the fees?

Raising hackles

But indeed, why talk only about training the frustrated second-class citizens who love dogs? How about educating the dog-fearing half of the population on keeping in check their inherent hostility?

Let me just give an example. One morning many years ago, I was taking a walk along the beach when I was surrounded by a pack of dogs not wearing tag or collar. I believe though unlicensed, they belonged to the nearby fisher folks. Naturally, I feared getting hurt but I stood stock still, breathing slowly and quietly.

After about a quarter of an hour without me making any threatening movements, the dogs circling me wandered off. The lesson is that if you keep your cool, you can walk away unscathed from such an encounter.

But if you've been taught from young that dogs are Public Enemy No1, and habituated to react like a silat greenhorn and growl threats when meeting a dog, then you may raise the hackles of the dogs and vice versa.

The sad part of the above episode was hearing that the dogs were rounded up a few weeks later by the municipal council. Under the law, unlicensed dogs may be seized and destroyed by the authorities. Likewise, if your neighbours feel that you have failed to keep your dog "under proper control", they can also ask the authorities to seize and destroy it.

Where, for dog's sake?

My biggest bone of contention is with one piece of practically useless advice aired when the Puchong incident had been hogging the headlines. The media lectured us that keeping dogs in extreme restrained conditions turns them vicious. Fair enough, and I personally abhor the cages and short chains that are used on the poor things.

However, the media also pontificated that responsible dog ownership includes giving the pet adequate exercise.

Now comes the big, fat caveat. Where in this dog-forsaken NoDoggia we call the Klang Valley do we exercise our dogs, pray tell?

Everywhere we go, we're confronted with 'No Dogs Allowed' and even at places where there may be no conspicuous signboards. At the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, my car - which had my dog sitting inside properly leashed and harnessed - was turned away at the gate.

Are we expected to put our life and limb at risk tugging Lassie by the sides of busy roads? Walk her along dirty, unlit backlanes since public recreational spaces are strictly off-limits?

Around where I live in Petaling Jaya, almost every green lung bans dogs, including the huge Kelana Jaya lake park, the leafy Taman Rekreasi Lembah Kiara, not to mention even the several tofu-sized playgrounds near my house. (photo)

In any civilised country, dogs would be allowed to walk their owners on the proviso that the bipeds scoop the poop. People and pooches can take exercise together in the open air. Civilised caring governments do their part to foster healthy and humane communities which have compassion for other living creatures.

But in NoDoggia?

Imagine that a horse is allowed into administrative capital Putrajaya's posh parks, but if you walk your dog, you're liable to be thrown in prison (here we go again!) for up to a year under its Parks (Federal Territory of Putrajaya) By-Laws 2002 PU(A) 421/2002 Section 4 (1).

So be forewarned. If your dog bites a boy, you might be jailed six months. However, if you ever commit this uniquely Malaysian crime of walking your dog in a public park, and you choose not to pay a compound fine, then you will be taken to court.

And I won't bet then that the police don't slap the cuffs on you either.