Animal law is a little-known subject in Singapore. However, the increase in public_x000D_ awareness and concern about animal welfare issues demand that more attention is_x000D_ directed at the legal aspects of such issues. An opportunity to examine this area of_x000D_ the law arose in the case of Ling Chung Yee Roy. The District Court, presided by_x000D_ District Judge Ng Peng Hong, had to decide whether the accused was guilty of an_x000D_ animal cruelty offence under s. 42(1)(e) of the Animals and Birds Act. The section_x000D_ provides that "[a]ny person who causes, procures or, being the owner, permits to_x000D_ be confined, conveyed, lifted or carried any animal in such a manner or position as_x000D_ to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering shall be guilty of an offence." This_x000D_ case is important for two reasons. First, it adds to the few existing local case law_x000D_ on animal cruelty. It is the first time a Singapore court has considered a situation_x000D_ that falls short of obvious cruelty. This made it necessary for the court to examine_x000D_ more carefully the legal requirements of the cruelty offence, particularly the meaning_x000D_ of "unneccesary suffering", in order to determine the scope of its application. By contrast, the previous cases all involved serious abuse, which clearly amounted to a cruelty offence, thus making it unnecessary to state the scope of the offence with precision. Secondly, the case was decided shortly after the government accepted the recommendation of the Animal welfare Legislation Review Committee ("AWLRC") to amend the ABA to impose a duty on a person responsible for an animal to ensure its welfare. An examination of the relationship between cruelty law and welfare law will be useful in determining the continued importance of Ling Chung Yee Roy when the statutory amendment comes into force.