A stray cat named “Banban” in Aberdeen has just died painfully after ingesting poisoned bait, while the maximum penalty for the individual responsible remains based on legislation established ninety years ago. In Hong Kong, an international metropolis, incidents of animal abuse occur at alarming frequencies. In 2024, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) received 494 reports of animal abuse, nearly doubling from 256 reports in 2021.

Yet, despite these shocking crimes, the maximum penalty under the current Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance remains three years of imprisonment and a fine of HK$200,000—this legal framework has fundamentally changed little since its establishment in 1935.

• Legislative Delays: An Animal Protection Law That Is Outdated

The core of Hong Kong’s existing animal protection laws, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, was first enacted in 1935. Although amended in 2006, its basic framework and principles are severely outdated compared to international standards.
A significant flaw in the current ordinance is its “reactive” and “post-hoc penalty” nature. The law only intervenes after an animal has already suffered actual harm,

lacking mechanisms to require caretakers to fulfill basic animal welfare standards before harm occurs.

In contrast, the international community has made strides; the UK enacted the Animal Welfare Act in 2006, introducing the concept of “Duty of Care.” Singapore revised its Animal and Birds Act in 2014, significantly increasing penalties and welfare standards.

Since initiating public consultations for amending the ordinance in 2019, the process in Hong Kong has stalled for six years, remaining at the stages of “study” and “consultation,” with no timeline for legislation in sight.

• Real-World Challenges: Insufficient Penalties and Ineffective Enforcement in a Vicious Cycle

In recent years, the number of animal abuse cases in Hong Kong has been on the rise, yet the success rate of prosecutions and the strength of penalties raise concerns. According to data from the Department of Justice, as of 2023, fewer than 30% of animal abuse reports ultimately progressed to judicial proceedings.

Court rulings also reflect the impotence of the current laws. Notable animal abuse cases in 2024 that attracted public attention often resulted in suspended sentences, short prison terms, or community service orders, with fines typically remaining low.

Enforcement poses additional challenges. The current ordinance does not clearly empower enforcement officers to intervene proactively when animal risk is suspected; they can only act post-injury, creating a passive enforcement model that prevents timely rescue for many animals.

• Core Controversy: The Quandary of Introducing “Duty of Care”

The central controversy surrounding the amendment lies in whether to introduce the concept of “Duty of Care” for animals. This concept requires animal keepers or caretakers to actively ensure animal welfare, including providing appropriate food, living conditions, and medical care.

Proponents argue that this is the cornerstone of modern animal welfare legislation, expanding protection from merely “preventing cruelty” to “promoting welfare.” Opponents, however, express concerns regarding vague definitions, potential increases in compliance costs, and legal risks.

This divide has directly led to a stalemate in the revision process. As of February 2025, a government spokesperson stated they were still “studying the amendments to the ordinance.” By October, the rhetoric shifted to “continuing consultations with relevant stakeholders.” Clearly, disagreements over key provisions have become the most significant obstacle to amendments.

• International Perspective: Trends in Animal Welfare Legislation in Comparative Law

Globally, jurisdictions under common law exhibit a noticeable trend toward “proactive prevention” in animal welfare legislation. The UK’s Animal Welfare Act not only introduced “Duty of Care” but also raised the maximum prison sentence to seven years.

Australia’s state legislation also provides useful references. New South Wales’ Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act details the “Five Freedoms” for animals: freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury or disease, to express normal behavior, and freedom from fear and distress.

Singapore’s experience is especially relevant for Hong Kong. The country established clear “Duty of Care” provisions and strict penalties (up to three years in prison and fines of SGD 40,000) coupled with effective enforcement mechanisms, significantly improving animal welfare conditions.

These jurisdictions share a common understanding that explicit “Duty of Care” provisions, appropriate penalties, and effective enforcement mechanisms are the three pillars of contemporary animal welfare legislation.

• Path Exploration: Feasible Solutions to Break the Legislative Deadlock

In the face of the legislative impasse, Hong Kong needs to seek practical breakthrough paths. First, a phased implementation strategy could be considered, advancing amendments on aspects where social consensus is higher (such as increasing penalties and expanding enforcement authority) while deferring more controversial provisions for later stages.

Regarding the design of “Duty of Care,” Hong Kong could adopt a model similar to Singapore’s, formulating clear and specific welfare standards and exemption clauses to reduce legal uncertainty. Additionally, differentiated responsibilities could be established for various types of animal keepers, distinguishing between professional organizations and individual pet owners.

Innovation in enforcement mechanisms is equally crucial. Establishing a dedicated animal abuse reporting hotline, creating a cross-departmental enforcement coordination mechanism, and providing specialized training for enforcement personnel could enhance protective effects within the existing legal framework.

Taking a cue from the UK, which established an Animal Welfare Committee, Hong Kong might consider forming an advisory body composed of experts, industry representatives, and animal welfare organizations to provide continuous professional advice for policy formulation.

Data from the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals indicates that over 80% of Hong Kong residents support strengthening animal protection laws. Additionally, bipartisan legislators have repeatedly signed letters urging the acceleration of amendment processes.
When slogans demanding “Animal Rights Now” appear outside the Legislative Council building, the AFCD’s responses remain “actively researching and consulting at the appropriate time.” This disparity between governmental responses and societal expectations epitomizes the issues within Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy.

The legislative delays are not merely a technical problem but a measure of the civilization level of the city. While Hong Kong prides itself on being an international metropolis, it lags behind many other regions in animal welfare legislation, a discrepancy that warrants serious reflection.