Within Hong Kong’s legal statutes resides an ordinance intimately connected to the lives of its citizens yet grounded in an antiquated philosophy—the Dogs and Cats Ordinance (Cap. 167). The origins of this legislation can be traced back to the colonial era in 1893, with the Dogs Bill drafted to control rabies (commonly known as ‘mad dog disease’). Its original legislative intent is deeply imprinted with the mindset of ‘public health crisis management’ from over a century ago, focusing on regulating dogs primarily as potential sources of disease transmission to safeguard human society. However, times have changed. More than a century later, Hong Kong has long eradicated rabies, and societal attitudes towards animals have undergone a profound transformation. Cats and dogs are now widely regarded as family companions and sources of emotional support. This old law, centred on ‘control’ and ‘prevention of nuisance’, has become severely disconnected from the modern societal values of ‘animal welfare’ and ‘respect for life’. The Research Department of The Hong Kong Foundation of the Prevention of Animal Abuse believes that a comprehensive modernisation of the Dogs and Cats Ordinance, reshaping it from a ‘public health management law’ into an ‘animal welfare protection law’, is a crucial and urgent step in optimising Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy. 3. Policy Reform Proposals: Constructing a Welfare-Oriented *Dogs and Cats Ordinance* for a New Era To achieve this transformation, we propose the following specific legislative and policy amendments: First, establish the ‘Keeper’s Duty of Care’ as the legal cornerstone. Introduce a dedicated chapter in the ordinance explicitly stating that all keepers of cats and dogs bear a legal duty to provide, according to the animal’s breed, age, health, and needs: ‘appropriate diet and fresh water’, ‘adequate living space and suitable shelter’, ‘necessary veterinary care’, ‘opportunity to exhibit normal behaviour patterns’, and ‘treatment ensuring freedom from fear and distress’. Breaching this core duty would constitute an offence, independent of whether it amounts to ‘cruelty’. Second, comprehensively reform the breeding and sale regulatory system. Implement a mandatory ‘Licensing System for Dog and Cat Breeders and Sellers’. Licensees must meet stringent standards regarding facilities, knowledge, and animal welfare, including limits on breeding frequency for breeding animals, requirements for socialisation of juveniles, genetic disease screening, and comprehensive sales record tracing. Unlicensed and ‘backyard’ breeding should be eradicated to reduce, at the source, animal suffering and abandonment caused by overbreeding and genetic defects. Third, legalise and institutionalise humane community management strategies. Explicitly authorise and regulate ‘Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return (or Rehome)’ as the preferred method for managing stray cat and dog populations within the ordinance. The government should establish a dedicated fund to support qualified animal welfare organisations partnering with communities to implement TNR programmes in specific areas. A ‘Registered Community Animal Carers’ scheme should be created to bring responsible community caregiving under regulated management. Fourth, strengthen enforcement, education, and supporting measures. Empower enforcement officers with greater authority to inspect premises where a breach of the duty of care is suspected. Concurrently, link ‘Owner Responsibility Education’ courses to dog license renewals and vigorously promote public awareness campaigns for ‘Adoption over Purchase’. Establish a territory-wide cat and dog database, linking electronic records of neutering, vaccination, and transfer with licensing to enhance management efficiency and transparency. Conclusion: Leading Social Progress Through Legal Innovation The modernisation of the Dogs and Cats Ordinance is not merely a technical legal task but a profound social civilising project. It tests Hong Kong’s ability to transcend colonial-era governance thinking from over a century ago and to genuinely integrate respect and compassion for life into the legal framework of urban governance. The step of transforming cats and dogs from a controlled ‘it’ to a protected ‘them’ is crucial. We call upon the SAR Government, the Legislative Council, and all sectors of society to seize this historical opportunity and initiate this vital legal reform with courage and foresight. Let the future Dogs and Cats Ordinance be not a historical relic of fear and control, but a charter for animal welfare that embodies compassion, responsibility, and scientific spirit—a charter worthy of Hong Kong’s new era. Only then can we build a truly civilised city that lives in harmony with all life.
In Hong Kong, a modern metropolis, a special group of ‘public servants’ toils in silence every day. With keen senses, steadfast loyalty, and quiet devotion, they safeguard the security and order of our society. From Customs detector dogs and Police dogs assisting in the search for drugs and explosives, to guard dogs patrolling correctional facilities, and guide dogs leading the way for the visually impaired – these are the indispensable ‘working animals’ in our community. However, while we benefit from the safety and convenience these animals provide, have we ever considered that the systems protecting their occupational safety and post-retirement welfare have long remained in a grey area? While human employees are protected by the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance, enjoying clear regulations on working hours, medical benefits, and retirement planning, the rights and welfare of these animal partners, who contribute their labour and even face risks, rely merely on scattered internal departmental guidelines or the personal goodwill of their handlers. The Animal Policy Research Department of The Hong Kong Foundation of the Prevention of Animal Abuse believes this institutional gap is profoundly inconsistent with Hong Kong’s self-proclaimed image as a civilised and progressive international city. We must confront this issue and establish a systematic, legalised protection framework for these silent contributors. Second, extend the scope of protection to all types of working animals. Beyond regulating its own canines, the government should proactively assume social responsibility by researching how to include working animals providing vital public services but trained by non-governmental organisations, such as guide dogs and hearing dogs, within the coverage of the welfare fund. Consideration could be given to issuing ‘medical subsidy vouchers’ to eligible service dog users and training institutions or providing direct grants to share the medical cost burden, ensuring no gaps in the safety net. Third, enhance transparency and public engagement. The government should publish an annual Working Animal Welfare Report, disclosing in detail the number, health status, retirement arrangements, and usage of the welfare fund for working animals across departments. Concurrently, it should optimise and actively promote public adoption programmes, enabling more citizens to participate in caring for these retired heroes, while also subjecting the system to public oversight. Conclusion: The True Measure of a Civilised Society The level of civilisation in a society is measured not only by how it treats its vulnerable human members but also by how it treats other lives that serve us in silence. Working animals are not tools; they are our colleagues, partners, and benefactors. The current protection model, reliant on departmental self-regulation and individual goodwill, has fully exposed its arbitrariness and inadequacy. We call upon the SAR Government, Legislative Councillors, and all sectors of society to confront this long-neglected issue and demonstrate genuine political commitment and foresight. By legislating for unified occupational safety standards and establishing a publicly funded retirement welfare fund, we can not only provide these silent servants with the reward they deserve but also show the world that Hong Kong is a truly civilised city – one that is not only efficient but also compassionate. It is time to elevate their welfare from an ‘act of additional goodwill’ to an ‘inalienable right’.
In 2006, Hong Kong’s legislature, responding to years of strong public calls forenhanced animal protection, completed a significant revision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169). The most notable feature of this legislative reform was the substantial increase in the maximum penalty to a fine of HK$200,000and three years’ imprisonment. This change, described by public commentary as introducing ‘draconian penalties’, carried deep public expectations for deterring acts of cruelty and raising standards of animal welfare in society. However, now that the applause has faded and the law has been in operation for over two years, we must coolly examine whether higher penalties equate to more effective protection. Has the theoretical ‘severity’ on paper been translated into ‘potency’ in enforcement and judicial practice? Our organisation’s research finds that the medium-term effectiveness of these amendments reveals profound practical challenges facing Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy as it seeks to move from ‘punitive provisions’ towards ‘effective safeguards’. Policy Optimisation Recommendations: Moving Beyond Penalties to Build a More Effective Animal Welfare Governance System First, establish sentencing guidelines for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. We urge the Hong Kong judiciary to expedite the formulation of specialised sentencing guidelines to provide courts with a clear reference framework for sentencing. The guidelines should establish clear sentencing tiers based on factors such as the method and cruelty of the act, the actual harm caused to the animal, the perpetrator’s motive, and prior record. This aims to standardise judicial practice, ensure proportionality between crime and punishment, and allow the law’s deterrent force to be genuinely realised in each judicial ruling. Second, strengthen enforcement powers and build professional capacity. The government should consider amending the ordinance to authorise law enforcement officers to enter premises to investigate and seize animals when they reasonably suspect an animal is suffering or about to suffer, in order to prevent ongoing harm. Simultaneously, systematic professional training in animal welfare law and evidential investigation must be provided to frontline enforcement officers and prosecutors. Consideration should be given to establishing dedicated investigation units to enhance the professionalism and efficiency of case handling. Third, initiate legislative research on introducing a ‘duty of care’. This is a crucial step towards fundamentally reforming Hong Kong’s animal welfare governance model. We recommend the government immediately commence research, referencing overseas experience, on introducing the concept of a ‘duty of care’ into the ordinance. This statutory duty would require all persons responsible for an animal (including owners, breeders, keepers, etc.) to take positive, reasonable steps to ensure the animal’s basic welfare needs are met. This includes providing suitable diet, living environment, veterinary care, and allowing the expression of natural behaviour. Breaching this duty would constitute an offence, thereby shifting the legal focus from punishing ‘cruelty’ to safeguarding ‘welfare’, achieving a paradigm shift from reactive punishment to proactive regulation. Conclusion: Moving from ‘Severe Legislation’ to ‘Effective Governance’ The 2006 amendments were an important milestone marking the awakening of animal protection consciousness in Hong Kong society. However, two years of practice clearly show that relying solely on increased penalties cannot automatically build an animal- friendly society. The dignity and efficacy of the law lie in meticulous judicial practice, efficient enforcement action, and evolving legislative philosophy. We call upon the SAR Government, the judiciary, enforcement agencies, and all sectors of society to squarely address the current gap between ‘severe penalties’ and ‘practical effectiveness’, and to expand the policy focus from mere punitive deterrence to comprehensive capacity building and institutional innovation. Only in this way can the law become not merely severe text on paper, but a solid shield genuinely guarding every life, propelling Hong Kong’s animal welfare cause towards its next, more mature stage.
