As racehorses sprint towards the finish line at Sha Tin Racecourse, winning the applause of the crowd, their peak moments as professional athletes garner much attention. However, for these animal athletes that bring significant economic benefits and cultural symbolism to Hong Kong, public interest rarely extends to a critical issue: after leaving the spotlight and the racetrack, will they receive the security and dignity that match their contributions? In 2015, the Hong Kong Jockey Club, as the largest animal user locally, serves as a critical reflection point for examining Hong Kong’s “working animal” welfare policies, particularly regarding its arrangements for the retirement of racehorses. Currently, discussions on animal welfare in society tend to focus on companion animals and strays, systematically overlooking the “working animal” groups that serve and create value in specific industries. Establishing a set of mandatory, transparent lifetime welfare standards and retirement safeguards for racehorses not only concerns the well-being of thousands of horses but is also a significant step towards advancing Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy into a more comprehensive and mature framework. This exposes a significant legislative gap in animal welfare in Hong Kong: our laws can regulate the size of hamster cages in pet shops but do not provide any mandatory legal framework for ensuring the quality of life for racehorses that have served a multi-million-dollar industry. Conclusion: Another Yardstick for Measuring Social Civilization The welfare protections for the later lives of working animals serve as an implicit measure of the depth of civilization and the warmth of a society’s system. The Hong Kong Jockey Club’s outstanding position in the global horse racing community should not only be reflected in the level of races and betting amounts but also in the leading standards of welfare protection for animal partners. We call upon the Hong Kong SAR Government, the Legislative Council, the Hong Kong Jockey Club, and all citizens concerned about animal welfare to jointly support and advance this system construction. Starting with legislation for racehorses, gradually expanding protections to all working animal groups. This is not only a deserved return for these voiceless contributors but also a step towards building a more complete and advanced animal welfare safety net in Hong Kong, establishing our city’s image as one that truly respects life in the international community. The long road beyond the finish line should be a dignified path of safeguarding.

As the planning blueprint for the Northeast New Territories development progresses to construction plans, plots of farmland, abandoned village houses, and adjacent green belts are about to undergo drastic changes. Public discussions have largely centered on housing supply, community planning, and resident relocation. However, another group of voiceless “indigenous residents”—the community animals and wildlife that have long inhabited this area—has been completely ignored in the face of development. This is not just an ecological issue; it exposes systemic failures and ethical blind spots in Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy when confronted with large-scale urban development. In 2015, we must confront a critical question: Are we prepared to assume responsibility for the lives of these animals in Hong Kong’s pursuit of development, or will we allow them to become silent “sacrifices” of progress? Conclusion: The Measure of Civilized Development A great city is not only defined by the height of its skyscrapers and the growth of its economic indicators but also by the attitude and warmth it extends toward its most vulnerable lives. The development of Northeast New Territories is a necessary step in addressing housing demands in Hong Kong, but this should not come at the cost of silent expulsion and slaughter of countless animal lives.In 2015, we stand at a crucial decision point. We can choose to continue with outdated thinking, treating the suffering of animals as an unavoidable “external cost” of development; or we can embrace advanced governance concepts, integrating animal welfare into the core considerations of urban planning, demonstrating the responsibility and foresight that a modern society should uphold. We call upon the Hong Kong SAR government, Planning Department, Development Bureau, and relevant decision-making bodies to adopt and implement the above recommendations immediately. Let the Northeast New Territories development plan not only be an endeavor to provide housing but also the starting point for establishing a new model of “animal-friendly development” in Hong Kong. This will be a legacy of a more inclusive and civilized urban environment for future generations.

In early 2015, the Hong Kong Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department launched a three-year pilot program for “Capture, Neuter, Return” (TNR) in Cheung Chau and Yuen Long’s Tai Tong. This marked a significant shift in Hong Kong’s stray animal management policy from a traditional reliance on “capture—humane treatment” to exploring a new, scientifically-based approach that aligns with animal welfare principles. Right from the start, the program carried diverse expectations from various sectors of society: animal welfare groups viewed it as a crucial step toward “zero euthanasia,” while some community residents expressed concerns over the management, hygiene, and safety of returned stray dogs. At the outset of the program, we believe its success or failure should not be simply judged by a report three years later. The true value lies in our ability to conduct keen observations, objective recordings, and rapid learning during the initial implementation phase, using these foundations to construct a forward-thinking, long-term policy framework that allows the TNR concept to sustainably take root in Hong Kong. This responsibility extends not only to the animals involved but also to the management of public resources and social trust. Conclusion The TNR pilot program initiated in 2015 represents a valuable policy experiment. We should approach each step in its early stages with a scientific and pragmatic attitude. Whether successful or faced with setbacks, every experience is an indispensable building block for constructing the future blueprint. The ultimate goal of this program should not merely be to “reduce the number of stray dogs” as a single statistic but to promote the establishment of a modern animal management philosophy in Hong Kong that respects life, is based on science, encourages community participation, and addresses root causes. This path requires the determination of the government, the implementation capacity of professional organizations, and the understanding and tolerance of all citizens. Let us start by taking the TNR pilot program seriously, working together to seek a more humane and sustainable future for animals in Hong Kong and the community environment we all share.

Walking into a newly opened pet café, customers are joyfully taking photos with the cats and dogs inside, feeding them. This seemingly heartwarming scene is becoming a new consumer trend in Hong Kong in 2015. From pet cafés and cat cafés to animal- themed experience centers, commercial models that center on live animals as core attractions are rapidly emerging. However, beneath this façade of “healing” and “cuteness” lies a severe issue: the living conditions and basic welfare of animals placed at the frontline of commercial interactions exist in a gray area not covered by current laws. Currently, the cornerstone of animal welfare in Hong Kong—the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169)—is a “anti-cruelty law” focused on “punishing cruel behavior.” Its regulation primarily targets the personal actions of pet owners, addressing extreme behaviors such as beating and torment, which can be clearly evidenced. However, the current legislation proves inadequate for the systemic welfare deprivation that may occur in “pet-themed commercial venues” due to the nature of their business model—such as prolonged noise and disruptions from strangers, lack of adequate rest and privacy, inappropriate feeding and interaction, and unclear sources and health conditions of the animals. As long as animals do not exhibit immediate, overt severe injuries or illnesses, the law finds it difficult to intervene. Therefore, we must face and promote fundamental legal reform: immediately initiate legislative procedures to explicitly include all profit-driven “animal display and interaction commercial activities” within the statutory regulation scope of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. This is not an obstacle to business innovation but rather a means to establish minimum animal welfare standards for this emerging industry, ensuring that economic development does not come at the expense of the welfare of voiceless beings. Conclusion: Choose Civilization or Indifference The silence of those animals in windows and cafés should not justify their exploitation. The degree of a society’s civilization is reflected in how it treats those who cannot advocate for their own rights. Allowing an industry that attracts customers with animals while being unaccountable for their lifelong welfare to grow unchecked is a failure of the law and a moral failure of society. Amending the law to set clear welfare floors for animals in commercial activities is an indispensable step in modernizing Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy. This is not only to protect animals but also to foster a responsible, compassionate consumer culture and business ethics. We urge every citizen to support this legislative amendment through concern and voices; we call on legislators and government officials to demonstrate political courage and responsibility to initiate this urgent reform in 2015. Let us not wait until more lives silently suffer in the midst of commercial frenzy before we finally regret it.