A mixed-breed dog, found barely alive, had its neck deeply strangled by a nylon rope. Despite the overwhelming evidence, the abuser was ultimately sentenced to only 160 hours of community service. This is yet another ruling among many animal cruelty cases in Hong Kong in 2023 that has left the public outraged and helpless.

According to data from the Hong Kong SPCA, reports of animal abuse surged to 441 in 2023, reaching a near-record high. In stark contrast to this dire situation is the years-long stagnation of the amendment work on the “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance” (Cap. 169), which has been stalled since public consultation began in 2019.

Although the government has repeatedly stated that it is “actively preparing for legislative amendments,” a specific legislative timetable remains elusive. Meanwhile, the success rate of prosecutions in related cases handled by the courts in 2023 was low, with penalties often limited to probation, community service, or fines well below the statutory maximum. The existing maximum penalty (three years imprisonment and a fine of HKD 200,000) is effectively empty in judicial practice, with a severe lack of deterrence. This has led to a sense of impunity among animal abusers and disheartened animal lovers.

• Outdated Legislation: An Animal Protection Law that Falls Behind the Times
  
  The current “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance” in Hong Kong is primarily based on a framework established in 1935. Although it was amended in 2006, the core remains focused on “preventing extreme cruelty.” This nearly ninety-year-old law is out of place in today’s society.
  
  Its main flaw lies in its “passive punishment” and “post-fact accountability” logic. The law can only intervene when animals have already suffered irreversible harm and cannot require caretakers to fulfill positive animal welfare responsibilities beforehand. For actions that constitute negligence, long-term confinement, or psychological abuse—forms of cruelty that do not meet the threshold of “direct cruelty” but severely affect animal welfare—the existing ordinance is often powerless.
  
  The high burden of proof is another significant barrier to enforcement. Prosecutors must establish that the abuser had the “intent to inflict unnecessary suffering,” which is difficult to prove in many cases, leading to a large number of cases failing to enter the judicial process due to insufficient evidence. Thus, the law’s protective net is riddled with holes.
  
  Moreover, the definition of “animals” and the scope of protection under the ordinance have become narrow, failing to encompass all vertebrates or reflect contemporary ethical understandings of animals. This outdated law, like an aging individual, can no longer safeguard the animals in today’s Hong Kong.
  
  
• The Plight of Reform: The “Tortoise-Speed” Process After Public Consultation in 2019
  
  In 2019, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department launched a public consultation on amending the “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance.” The social response was enthusiastic, with overwhelming support for significant reforms. The public expressed strong demands for introducing “Duty of Care,” increasing penalties, and broadening the scope of protection.
  
  However, four years later, the amendment process is nearly stagnant. When responding to inquiries, the government repeatedly uses phrasing like “actively preparing for legislative amendments,” but there is still no clear timetable for when the draft amendments will be submitted to the Legislative Council for review. This state of “hearing stairs creaking but not seeing anyone come down” is draining public expectation and trust.
  
  Behind the stalling of the amendment is a complex interplay of interests and administrative inertia. Introducing “Duty of Care” would mean establishing higher statutory responsibilities for pet owners and related industries (such as pet breeding, trading, and fostering), and resistance is inevitable. Additionally, practical issues such as coordination of responsibilities among departments and resource allocation for enforcement have also become excuses for delays.
  
  Yet societal progress will not wait. In 2023, reports of animal abuse reached a new high, indicating that the problem is becoming increasingly severe. Every report potentially represents a suffering life. Each delay in the amendment comes at the cost of animal suffering.
  
• Enforcement and Judicial Dilemmas: A Culture of Leniency and Failure of Deterrence
  
  Even if the abuser is successfully prosecuted, the handling of animal cruelty crimes by the Hong Kong judicial system has frequently come under scrutiny.
  
  In 2023, despite 441 reports, the number of successfully prosecuted cases was incredibly low. Many cases were dropped due to evidential issues or excessively high prosecution thresholds. Even when they reach trial, the leniency of penalties is often shocking. Community service, probation, or fines in the thousands of dollars are common verdicts. These penalties are completely disproportionate to the immense suffering endured by the animals.
  
  The highest penalty under the current law (three years imprisonment, a fine of HKD 200,000) is rarely applied in practice and is effectively a nullity. This “lift high, drop lightly” approach conveys the wrong message to society: that the cost of animal abuse is very low. The complete failure of deterrence inadvertently condones potential abusers.
  
  Moreover, significant disparities in sentencing across different judges for similar cases further undermine judicial fairness. The lack of sentencing guidelines leads to uncertainty in penalties and fails to effectively punish offenders or meet public expectations for justice.
  
• International Perspectives: Global Trends in Animal Welfare Legislation
  
  While Hong Kong languishes in legislative inertia, the global trend in animal welfare legislation is progressing rapidly.
  
  The United Kingdom set a precedent with the Animal Welfare Act of 2006. This law not only introduced “Duty of Care,” requiring caretakers to ensure animals enjoy the “Five Freedoms” (freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, and disease; the ability to express normal behavior; and freedom from fear and distress), but also empowered enforcement officers to intervene proactively when animal welfare is threatened. The maximum penalty has also been increased to seven years imprisonment.
  
  In Asia, Taiwan’s Animal Protection Act has undergone numerous amendments, becoming increasingly robust. Singapore comprehensively revised its Animals and Birds Act in 2014, significantly increasing penalties and enhancing regulations on breeding facilities.
  
  The shared experiences of these jurisdictions illustrate that a modernized animal welfare law must include several core elements: a clear “Duty of Care,” substantively deterring penalties, preventive enforcement powers, and welfare standards that encompass the entire life cycle of animals. Their legislative practices provide Hong Kong with a clear roadmap for reform.
  
• International Perspectives: Global Trends in Animal Welfare Legislation
• While Hong Kong languishes in legislative inertia, the global trend in animal welfare legislation is progressing rapidly.
• The United Kingdom set a precedent with the Animal Welfare Act of 2006. This law not only introduced “Duty of Care,” requiring caretakers to ensure animals enjoy the “Five Freedoms” (freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, and disease; the ability to express normal behavior; and freedom from fear and distress), but also empowered enforcement officers to intervene proactively when animal welfare is threatened. The maximum penalty has also been increased to seven years imprisonment.
• In Asia, Taiwan’s Animal Protection Act has undergone numerous amendments, becoming increasingly robust. Singapore comprehensively revised its Animals and Birds Act in 2014, significantly increasing penalties and enhancing regulations on breeding facilities.
• The shared experiences of these jurisdictions illustrate that a modernized animal welfare law must include several core elements: a clear “Duty of Care,” substantively deterring penalties, preventive enforcement powers, and welfare standards that encompass the entire life cycle of animals. Their legislative practices provide Hong Kong with a clear roadmap for reform.
  
• The Voices and Actions of Civil Society: Reforms That Cannot Wait
  
  Faced with the deadlock in amending legislation, civil society in Hong Kong has not remained silent. Animal welfare groups, Legislative Council members, professionals, and ordinary citizens are voicing their demands for the government to take action.
  
  In 2023, multiple animal welfare organizations united to initiate a campaign to collect signatures from citizens, urging the government to fulfill its legislative promises. Within the Legislative Council, cross-party members have repeatedly raised questions during meetings, urging the government to announce a timetable for amendments. Public discourse on animal welfare has reached unprecedented levels, with every reported case of abuse further solidifying the consensus for reform.
  
  The core demands of these actions are clear and precise:
  
  • Establish a clear legislative timetable to end the indefinite waiting;
  • Introduce “Duty of Care,” elevating animal welfare protection from “prohibiting abuse” to “actively maintaining” welfare;
  • Substantially increase penalties and establish sentencing guidelines to ensure that punishments are proportionate and restore the deterrent effect of the law;
  • Empower enforcement agencies to intervene early when animals are at risk;
  • Broaden the scope of legal protection to align with international ethical standards for animals.

The delay in amending the law is not just an issue of administrative efficiency but also a matter of value choices. The vitality of a law lies in its ability to respond to the call of the times and the conscience of society. The strong public sentiment demonstrated in the 2019 consultation has already pointed the way for reform.

In 2023, the 441 reports of abuse serve as a warning bell for society. Animals cannot voice their suffering; their rights need to be defended, and their suffering must be seen. As an international metropolis that claims to value the rule of law and civilization, Hong Kong cannot tolerate a nearly ninety-year-old law continuing to govern the fate of today’s animals.

Reform cannot wait any longer. Every day’s delay could mean more silent suffering. It is time to show political will, restart the stalled amendment work, and draft a protective code for animals in Hong Kong that is worthy of this era.