A dog tied to a small balcony, lacking water and shade under the scorching sun, is enduring chronic suffering, yet current laws are powerless to intervene. This is not just a hypothetical scenario, but a daily reality exposing the systemic flaws in Hong Kong’s animal welfare laws. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Chapter 169) was enacted in 1935 and underwent a revision in 2006, but its core logic remains rooted in a “prevention of cruelty” mindset established nearly a century ago.

In 2018, Hong Kong stands at a crucial crossroads for reforming animal welfare laws. As social awareness of animal rights has greatly increased, a comprehensive review and revision of this outdated law has become an unavoidable social consensus and policy issue. This reform is about whether Hong Kong can transform from a city that merely meets the baseline of “not abusing” animals into a civilized society that actively ensures “positive welfare” for animals.

• The Dilemma of Old Laws: A Dull “Anti-Cruelty Law”
  
  To understand the necessity of reforming the law, one must first recognize the fundamental flaws in the current ordinance. This is a typical “anti-cruelty law,” rather than a modern animal welfare law. Its core logic is passive punishment—legal intervention is only possible after animals have suffered extreme, provable acts of “cruelty” (such as beating, kicking, maltreatment, or torture).
  
  This design leads to two critical flaws. The first is the lagging nature of protection. The law is like a tardy rescue worker, only able to address the direst aftermaths. For more pervasive issues like neglect, such as prolonged lack of proper diet, harsh environments, or absence of medical care, enforcement agencies often struggle to intervene unless the situation meets the legal threshold for “cruelty.”
  
  The second flaw is the extremely high burden of proof and narrow scope of protection. Prosecution must demonstrate that the offender “intentionally” or “recklessly” inflicted unnecessary suffering. Proving subjective intent for long-standing neglect due to ignorance or indifference is very difficult, resulting in many cases being unable to enter judicial proceedings. The law primarily targets direct physical violence, while it is nearly impossible to regulate the deprivation of animals’ ability to express their natural behaviors, leading them to experience long-term fear and anxiety.
  
• Social Consensus: The Call for Reform is Now Mainstream in 2018
  
  By 2018, amending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance is no longer a radical proposal, but a widespread consensus across various sectors of society. This consensus is based on several increasingly evident realities.
  
  Firstly, public awareness of animal welfare has undergone a qualitative change. More and more citizens view companion animals as family members, and their expectations for quality of life have surpassed the baseline of “not being beaten.” Society expects the law to ensure that animals enjoy basic welfare and dignity.
  
  Secondly, the deterrent effect of the current law is widely believed to be severely insufficient. At that time, the maximum penalty was a fine of HKD 200,000 and imprisonment for three years. However, in judicial practice, very few cases reached this limit, and punishments mostly consisted of community service orders, probation, or low fines. This creates a significant gap between legal penalties and societal recognition of the severity of animal cruelty crimes, leading to questions about the credibility and deterrence of the law.
  
  Lastly, the current ordinance fails completely to address complex modern animal management issues. Whether it’s the regulation of illegal breeding, oversight of animal sales operators, or constraints on emerging business models like “shared pets,” the old laws seem powerless. The law lags behind social development, creating a significant regulatory vacuum.
  
• Core Direction: A Paradigm Shift from “Passive Prohibition” to “Active Responsibility”
  
  Any meaningful law reform cannot merely be about raising penalties but must involve a fundamental transformation of the legal paradigm. The developmental trajectory of international animal welfare legislation clearly indicates the direction: evolving from early “anti-cruelty laws” to “animal protection laws,” ultimately leading to modern “animal welfare laws” centered on “due diligence.” For Hong Kong in 2018, the focus of reform should be to introduce and establish this “due diligence” principle.
  
  “Due diligence” requires those responsible for animals (owners, breeders, sellers, managers, etc.) to take proactive, reasonable measures to ensure the welfare needs of animals. This means the law shifts from questioning, “Did you inflict cruelty on the animal?” to requiring responsible parties to answer, “Have you fulfilled your duty to safeguard the basic welfare of the animal?”
  
  Specifically, this responsibility can correspond to the internationally recognized framework of the “five freedoms” for animals:
  
  • The freedom from hunger and thirst: providing adequate food and water.
  • The freedom from discomfort: providing appropriate shelter and a comfortable living environment.
  • The freedom from pain, injury, and disease: providing necessary medical care and disease prevention.
  • The freedom to express normal behaviors: providing sufficient space, appropriate facilities, and opportunities for companionship.
  • The freedom from fear and distress: ensuring that the animal’s situation and treatment do not cause psychological suffering.

Since the implementation of the Animal Welfare Act in the UK in 2007, authorities can intervene as soon as they discover that an animal’s “five freedoms” are under threat, even if there is no visible harm. This has proven to be an effective model for preventive law enforcement.

• Legislative Strategy: Constructing an Enforceable Legal Framework
  
  Introducing “due diligence” requires a detailed legal design to ensure its operability. The research prepared for law reform in 2018 should focus on the following key aspects:
  
  First, create a tiered enforcement and penalty system. The implementation of “due diligence” should prioritize education and correction. For first-time or minor violations, an “improvement notice” system can be introduced, requiring responsible parties to rectify issues within a specified time. For intentional, serious, or repeat offenders, criminal prosecution should be initiated. Penalties must be commensurate with the severity of the offense, and in addition to increasing fines and prison terms, a “revocation of breeding license” should be introduced to prevent habitual offenders from continuing to harm animals.
  
  Second, issue supporting Practice Guidelines. The legal text should not be overly intricate. The government should develop and publish detailed Animal Welfare Practice Guidelines for common species (such as dogs, cats, rabbits, etc.), clearly explaining standards for what constitutes “appropriate environment,” “sufficient diet,” and “emergency veterinary care.” This provides guidelines for owners and helpful references for law enforcement personnel.
  
  Third, grant law enforcement officers the necessary investigatory and intervention powers. Currently, law enforcement often faces challenges in accessing premises when suspecting animal abuse. The law should empower authorized personnel to enter premises for investigation and remove animals at risk, thereby rescuing them from immediate danger.
  
• Call to Action: Seize the Opportunity, Build a Vision Together
  
  Based on the above analysis, we call upon the government, Legislative Council, and all citizens to initiate the comprehensive law reform process in 2018.
  
  First, the government should immediately make a public commitment and outline a timeline for legal revisions. 2018 should not merely be a “year of research,” but should become a “year of action.” The government must clearly state its intention to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance and publish a detailed roadmap from public consultation to the submission of the draft bill, demonstrating a commitment to reform.
  
  Second, the legislative reform must center on “due diligence” as a core principle. Future regulations (which might even consider renaming the ordinance to the “Animal Welfare Ordinance”) should systematically reshape around “due diligence,” clearly defining the obligations of different responsible parties, and convert the animals’ “five freedoms” into legal rights that align Hong Kong’s laws with leading international standards.
  
  Finally, simultaneous cross-departmental capacity building and public education should be conducted. The effectiveness of laws ultimately depends on enforcement and compliance. Alongside legal reform, the government should train conservation officers, police, and other enforcement personnel, and collaborate with civil society organizations to launch large-scale public education campaigns that promote the concept of “due diligence,” laying a solid foundation for the implementation of the new law.

2018 is a historic opportunity for legislative reform in animal welfare in Hong Kong. This is not only a technical legal amendment but also an important upgrade in societal values regarding life. Transitioning from a lagging, passive “anti-cruelty law” to an active, preventive modern animal welfare law, we will witness another advancement in Hong Kong’s rule of law civilization.

We can no longer allow the wheels of law to lag behind the lives suffering silently in the corners. The opportunity is at hand, and consensus has formed. Let us work together to urge the Special Administrative Region government and Legislative Council to muster intelligence and courage and initiate this overdue but necessary legal revolution in 2018, establishing a solid and warm welfare protection network for all animals in Hong Kong. This step must be taken, and we will take it.