A dog was rescued after suffering severe neck sores from being chained for a long time, yet under existing laws, the owner is likely to face only a trivial fine for “failing to provide necessary medical care” rather than serious charges of “animal cruelty.”

In April 2022, the Hong Kong SAR government revealed to the Legislative Council a highly anticipated legislative process: specific amendment proposals to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance would be reported in May, with plans to formally submit the amendment draft in the second half of the year. The most core and revolutionary proposal is the introduction of the legal concept of “Duty of Care.”

This signifies a fundamental paradigm shift in Hong Kong’s animal welfare law since its enactment in 1935—from merely punishing extreme cases of “cruel behavior” to legally mandating that owners actively provide basic welfare for animals.

• The Dilemma of Existing Legislation: Why Do We Need “Duty of Care”?
  
  The current Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) in Hong Kong is a typical “reactive punishment law.” Its core logic is that legal intervention can only occur after an animal has suffered obvious, provable “cruelty.” This reactive nature has led to a long-term neglect of numerous welfare issues in a significant “gray area.”
  
  For instance, while the law can punish acts such as beating a dog resulting in a fracture, it struggles to effectively regulate owners who confine dogs to dirty, cramped balconies without enough food and clean water, as the latter may not constitute “sufficient cruelty.” This low standard of “no cruelty means legal” is seriously out of touch with contemporary societal awareness of animal welfare.
  
  The introduction of “Duty of Care” aims to fill this vast legal and moral vacuum. It stipulates that anyone with ongoing control or responsibility for animals (not just owners but also caretakers, pet shops, etc.) must take “positive measures” to ensure animal welfare. Its core is to guarantee the “Five Freedoms” for animals: freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, injury, or disease, freedom to express normal behavior, and freedom from fear and distress.
  
  
• The Essence of “Duty of Care”: Not Just a Moral Appeal but a Legal Obligation
  
  “Duty of Care” is not an empty slogan but a set of enforceable legal standards. Referencing established legislative experiences such as the UK’s Animal Welfare Act 2006, it usually encompasses the following specific responsibilities:
  
  • Suitable Environment: Providing a living environment appropriate to the species that is safe, clean, and unaffected by adverse weather.
  • Adequate Diet: Providing sufficient, species-appropriate food and clean drinking water to maintain health.
  • Prevention and Treatment of Illness: Taking reasonable measures, including promptly seeking veterinary care, upon signs of illness or injury.
  • Expression of Nature: Providing enough space, appropriate facilities, and opportunities for interaction (where applicable) to allow the expression of normal behavior patterns.
  • Freedom from Fear: Ensuring that the animal’s situation and treatment do not cause unnecessary fear or mental suffering.
    

Incorporating these responsibilities into law means that enforcement personnel (such as AFCD inspectors) can intervene and correct conditions before they reach the level of “cruelty.” For example, if an extremely poor living environment is discovered, they can issue improvement notices, obliging owners to rectify the situation within a specified timeframe; failure to do so would constitute a violation. This shifts the role of the law from “post-punisher” to “pre-protector.”

• Key Legislative Issues: How to Design a “Duty of Care” Pro provision Suitable for Hong Kong?
  
  As the government prepares to propose amendments, the public must closely monitor and participate in discussions to ensure the final law is both forward-looking and operational within Hong Kong’s social context. Key points in legislative design include:
  
  • Precision in Defining Responsibility Scope: Which animals does “Duty of Care” apply to? Beyond cats and dogs, does it include common pets like rabbits, hamsters, ornamental birds, and turtles? Is it applicable to agricultural or working animals? The scope of responsibility must be clearly defined.
    
  • Specification of Welfare Standards: The law must go beyond abstract principles. The government should also issue legally binding “practical guidelines” for various common species, using accessible language and illustrations to explain what constitutes “suitable environments” and “adequate diets.” This will guide the public and provide clear enforcement criteria.
    
  • Gradual Enforcement Strategy: In the early stages of law enforcement, a focus on education, persuasion, and assistance in improvement should be prioritized. For willful, severe, or recurrent offenders, adequately deterrent penalties must be established. Penalties should be distinct from those for existing “cruelty” offenses but sufficiently severe to reflect the law’s emphasis on this positive responsibility.
    
    
• Beyond Owners: Institutional Support and Social Advocacy
  
  The success of “Duty of Care” relies not solely on passing a law and punishing individual owners but necessitates institutional support from society as a whole.
  
  • Strengthening Enforcement Capacity: The AFCD must receive appropriate enhancements and training for more inspectors knowledgeable in animal welfare. Channels should be established for public reporting of suspected violations of “Duty of Care,” along with cross-departmental cooperation mechanisms to address issues involving public housing and environmental health.
    
  • Promoting Public Education: The government should collaborate with animal welfare organizations to initiate large-scale public education campaigns explaining the specific requirements of “Duty of Care.” Education should begin with schoolchildren, incorporating the concept of responsible animal care into school curricula.
    
  • Supporting Vulnerable Owners: Some owners (e.g., the elderly, low-income individuals) may face challenges in fulfilling responsibilities due to economic or knowledge limitations. The government and charitable organizations should consider establishing an “Animal Welfare Support Fund” to provide eligible individuals with subsidies for neutering, basic veterinary care, or pet supplies, preventing animals from suffering due to owners’ economic hardships and achieving true welfare protection.

The introduction of “Duty of Care” is not merely about adding a few legal clauses. It represents a profound conceptual revolution—from viewing animals as disposable “objects” to acknowledging them as sentient beings whose welfare needs to be actively safeguarded.

2022 is a critical turning point in Hong Kong’s animal welfare legislation. The introduction of “Duty of Care” provides a historic opportunity to convert society’s widespread compassion for animals into clear, enforceable legal standards.

This step aligns Hong Kong’s laws with jurisdictions such as the UK, New Zealand, and Taiwan, which have implemented similar responsibilities. Not only can it prevent countless potential sufferings, but it can fundamentally elevate the standards and attitudes of the entire society towards life.

We call upon Legislative Council members to uphold the core principles of “Duty of Care” when deliberating the draft law and to create a forward-thinking piece of legislation. We also urge every citizen to support this legislation and begin reflecting on whether we have fulfilled our “Duty of Care” towards the lives we care for.

The silence of animals should not become a reason for neglecting their welfare. In 2022, let us protect them with a compassionate law they rightly deserve.