A dog trembles on the edge of Tuen Mun Highway, surrounded by a rushing stream of vehicles, with the car that hit it long gone from sight. According to current laws, the driver may bear no specific consequences for their actions. In this bustling international metropolis, companion animals have become essential members of countless families. However, a harsh reality exists: when cats and dogs are involved in traffic accidents, the current Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) provides them with significant legal gaps in protection. As the year 2019 saw a peak in societal concern for animal welfare, reviewing and amending this outdated law has become an urgent legislative agenda. The existing law only stipulates that drivers must stop if they hit farm animals such as horses, cows, donkeys, mules, sheep, pigs, or goats. This protection list, rooted in past agricultural society thinking, glaringly excludes cats and dogs—the most common companion animals. This legal oversight is severely disconnected from the status and emotional value of cats and dogs in modern Hong Kong society, implicitly conveying a wrong message: their lives and safety are not worthy of special legal attention. Fortunately, a transformative opportunity has arisen. In 2019, the Hong Kong government launched a three-month public consultation to comprehensively amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, receiving enthusiastic societal feedback. This extensive discourse on animal welfare provides an excellent social atmosphere and public foundation to re-evaluate all related laws, including the Road Traffic Ordinance. We must seize this moment to push for targeted legal amendments that pave a safer path for our furry family members. The Legal Gaps and Moral Dilemmas in Existing Laws The essence of law is to reflect societal core values and respect for life. The current Road Traffic Ordinance, which only requires drivers to stop for farm livestock while remaining silent on similar incidents involving cats and dogs, creates a profound inequality in the value of life. Such differential treatment lacks compelling justification. In practical terms, this means that when a driver hits a cat or dog, even if the animal is clearly injured and in need of urgent care, the driver has no legal obligation to stop. This not only delays potential lifesaving treatment but also deprives opportunities to hold individuals accountable for harming animals. For pet owners, the loss of a pet is already agonizing enough, and the lack of legal protection leaves them with no recourse. For society, this invisibly fosters an attitude of indifference towards animal lives, contradicting Hong Kong’s aspirations as a civilized and compassionate society. The Core of the Amendment: Extending “Duty of Care” to the Roads The central spirit of the 2019 public consultation is to elevate animal protection from a passive “prevention of cruelty” to an active “welfare guarantee,” introducing a “duty of care” for pet owners. This principle should equally apply to road users. Amending the Road Traffic Ordinance to require drivers to stop after hitting cats and dogs embodies the implementation of society’s “duty of care” towards animals in public transport contexts. This amendment should encompass several key elements: Addressing Concerns and Balancing Interests Any legal amendment requires careful consideration. Some may worry that mandating stops in high-speed areas could endanger the safety of drivers and other road users. In response, the amendment can specify that drivers must stop only when it is “safe to do so.” If immediate safe stopping isn’t feasible, drivers should pull over safely as soon as practicable and report the incident. This approach safeguards the right to rescue animals while also prioritizing road safety. Additionally, the government should concurrently enhance supportive measures, such as installing warning signs in high-animal-traffic areas and conducting public education initiatives to inform drivers about the new regulations and response procedures. Protecting animal welfare and maintaining public safety are not mutually exclusive; they can be balanced through well-designed laws and public education efforts. Conclusion: This Is More Than Just a Legal Amendment; It’s a Civilizational Test By 2019, Hong Kong society has demonstrated strong consensus for enhancing animal welfare through widespread discussions. Including cats and dogs under the protection of the Road Traffic Ordinance is a crucial piece of the progressive puzzle that must be completed. Though this amendment may seem like a technical adjustment, its implications are profound. It marks the official acknowledgment by our legal system of the inherent life value and emotional bonds associated with companion animals, deserving serious treatment within the rules of public spaces. It compels every road user to assume both moral and legal responsibilities toward these voiceless companions. We urge legislators, government officials, and all sectors of society to seize the current momentum for legislative reform and actively push forward this long-overdue amendment. Let us demonstrate through action that Hong Kong is not only an efficient business hub but also a civilized society where every life is respected and cared for. No more should the momentum of law lag behind the lives that fall by the wayside.

In 2019, the Hong Kong government launched a public consultation on revising the Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance. One of the revolutionary core proposals was the introduction of a proactive “duty of care.” This represents not just an adjustment of legal provisions, but a conceptual revolution in animal welfare shifting from “after-the- fact punishment” to “preemptive protection.” According to a report titled “Review of Hong Kong Animal Protection Legislation” published in 2010 by the University of Hong Kong Law Department in collaboration with the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the existing laws have fundamental flaws: they only intervene after an animal has been injured and cannot protect animals from impending suffering. This has left countless animals suffering in the grey area of “negligent care” until their health collapses. In 2019, the government formally responded to this systemic deficiency. In its reply to the Legislative Council in June, it stated clearly that it was engaged in a consultation to enhance animal welfare, which included the introduction of a “duty of care” for animal guardians. This marks a historic opportunity for Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy to evolve from passive punishment to active construction. The background of this public consultation arises from the growing societal concern for animal welfare. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department explicitly pointed out in the consultation announcement that both pet owners and animal welfare groups have expressed a desire for the government to review the laws, not only to reduce unnecessary suffering but also to require those responsible for animals to take proactive measures to meet their welfare needs. The 2019 public consultation garnered significant attention and support from the community. Reports indicated that thousands of written opinions were submitted, with nearly 90% expressing support for legislative amendments. This clearly shows that enhancing animal welfare has become a strong societal consensus. The key aspect of the consultation lies in the government’s proposed directional shift: moving from merely prohibiting and punishing “cruel treatment” to requiring proactive and proper care for animals. This implies that the focus of the law will shift from punishment after the fact to responsibility and prevention beforehand. The government’s proposed amendments centre around three core directions, each addressing critical deficiencies in the current legislation. Introducing a Proactive “Duty of Care”This is the most fundamental and revolutionary change in this amendment. The core idea is that those responsible for animals (including owners and temporary caretakers) must take proactive measures to ensure that animals receive proper nutrition, living conditions, and behavioural care (including social needs), thereby protecting them from pain, disease, and injury. If those responsible fail to fulfil this duty, the government may issue improvement notices requiring corrections, and in severe cases, prosecution may occur. This concept elevates animal welfare from the minimum standard of “not being abused” to a proactive state of “enjoying welfare.” Strengthening Provisions Against Animal CrueltyTo address the inadequacy of deterrent penalties under the current law, the government has proposed strengthening penalties. The consultation document suggests that for serious offences of animal cruelty assessed through public prosecution, the maximum prison sentence could be raised to between 4 to 10 years, and fines could potentially increase to between HK$200,000 and HK$2 million. Additionally, it is recommended that courts be authorised to revoke or permanently disqualify convicted individuals from owning animals. Enhancing Enforcement Powers for Animal WelfareTo address the challenges faced by enforcement officers when suspecting animal abuse, the government has proposed granting authorised personnel the power to enter private premises for searches without the owner’s consent when necessary. When animals are found to be suffering or at risk of suffering, they may be directly seized to ensure their welfare. The Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as a key stakeholder in animal welfare, welcomes and supports the government’s legislative direction, offering more specific and detailed professional recommendations. Raising Penalties to a Deterrent LevelAlthough the government has proposed increasing penalties, the Society explicitly recommends that the maximum penalty for animal abuse be raised to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$2 million to achieve a genuine deterrent effect. Expanding the Scope of the “Duty of Care”The Society suggests that the act of abandoning animals should be clearly included as a violation of the “duty of care.” Furthermore, actions such as releasing animals into inappropriate environments, performing unnecessary harm-inducing procedures (such as tail docking or declawing), and poisoning animals should also be clearly defined as abuse or prohibited in the new legislation. Establishing a More Comprehensive Law Enforcement and Judicial FrameworkThe Society recommends establishing an “on-the-spot fine” mechanism to handle minor violations and introducing a compensation system requiring convicted individuals to pay for the treatment and care of the affected animals. Concurrently, the current six- month prosecution time limit should be extended, and training for enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges should be strengthened to ensure the new laws are effectively implemented. Based on an analysis of the consultation document and expert opinions, to transform this legislative goodwill into effective tools for animal protection, we believe it is essential to focus on several key points. First, clear and high-standard legal criteria for animal welfare must be established. The “duty of care” cannot remain at a purely principled level. The government should reference overseas experiences to formulate and publish a specific “Animal Welfare Practice Code” that clearly defines the basic needs of different animals in terms of diet, environment, health, and behaviour, allowing responsible individuals to have clear guidelines and enforcement officers to have lawful grounds. Second, penalties must genuinely correspond to the severity of the offences. We support raising the maximum penalty to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$2 million, which serves not only to deter extreme cruel acts but also to convey a clear message to society that “animal abuse is a serious crime.” Additional penalties such as revoking ownership rights and introducing compensation mechanisms can achieve a fuller sense of justice. Furthermore, enforcement agencies must be empowered and adequately resourced. The

In recent years, the streets of Hong Kong have frequently witnessed the phenomenon of “wild pigs entering the city.” They rummage through garbage bins, stroll through residential areas, and occasionally clash with citizens. This is not an unwarranted “invasion” by wildlife but a natural consequence of the increasingly blurred boundaries between urban development and natural ecology. The current “reactive” management strategy, which primarily involves capture and relocation through contraception, while an important step, fails to address the root causes. To tackle this long-term challenge, Hong Kong urgently needs a fundamental policy transformation: moving from a “control mindset” that passively manages conflicts to a “coexistence mindset” that actively plans for harmony. Legislative and Enforcement Support: Safeguarding the Transformation A robust legal and enforcement framework is crucial to implementing all soft strategies. Currently, the deterrent effect of penalties against illegal feeding needs enhancement. The government should proactively consider raising fines or introducing community service orders as possibilities. In the long term, Hong Kong should review the scattered relevant legal provisions and consider the need for a more comprehensive, forward-looking animal protection and management law, providing clear, modern behavioural standards and governance bases for the complex relationship between humans and wildlife. The presence of wild pigs in urban areas symbolizes the growing pains faced by Hong Kong as an international metropolis closely intertwined with nature. This challenge is not only a test of government management capabilities but also a measure of the entire society’s ecological and civilizational awareness. We urge the government to demonstrate resolve, initiating a systematic policy transformation from “conflict management” to “coexistence planning,” while inviting every citizen to become a partner in this change. Only through scientific planning, strict enforcement, intelligent design, and responsible public participation can we collectively build Hong Kong into a truly livable city that thrives and harmoniously coexists with nature. This transformation concerns not only the fate of wild pigs but also defines the character and future of our city.

A dog, long forgotten by its owner on a small balcony, is barely alive due to a lack of sufficient food and care. However, under current legislation, enforcement officers often find it difficult to intervene unless there is direct evidence of “cruel treatment,” allowing tragedies to unfold before their eyes. Such scenarios underscore that the Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance, established in Hong Kong in 1935 and amended in 2006, is severely outdated in relation to modern societal expectations for animal welfare. This old law, which focuses on punishing “cruel treatment,” is like a slow-reacting paramedic that only arrives after harm has occurred, unable to prevent injury before it happens. In April 2019, the Hong Kong government took a historic step forward. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department announced a three-month public consultation on significant amendments to the Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance. The consultation proposed three major reform directions, including the introduction of a proactive “duty of care” concept, strengthening provisions against animal cruelty, and enhancing enforcement powers. This marks the potential transition of Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy from an era of “passive punishment” to a new era of “active protection.” The backdrop of this public consultation arises from growing societal concern over animal welfare. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department clearly stated in the consultation announcement that both pet owners and animal welfare groups have expressed a desire for the government to review legislation to not only reduce unnecessary suffering of animals but also to require individuals responsible for animals to take proactive measures to meet their welfare needs. The 2019 public consultation received substantial attention and support from the community. Reports indicated that thousands of written opinions were submitted, with nearly 90% expressing support for legislative amendments. This clearly demonstrates that enhancing animal welfare has become a strong societal consensus. The key aspect of the consultation lies in the government’s proposed directional shift: moving from merely prohibiting and punishing “cruel treatment” to requiring proactive care for animals. This means that the focus of the law will shift from punishment after the fact to responsibility and prevention beforehand. The government’s proposed amendments centre around three core directions, each addressing critical deficiencies in the current legislation. Introducing a Proactive “Duty of Care”This is the most fundamental and revolutionary change in this amendment. The core idea is that those responsible for animals (including owners and temporary caretakers) must take proactive measures to ensure that animals receive proper nutrition, living conditions, and behavioural care (including social needs), while protecting them from pain, disease, and injury. If those responsible fail to fulfil this duty, the government could issue improvement notices requiring corrections, and in severe cases, direct prosecutions may occur. This concept elevates the standard for animal protection from the minimum of “not being abused” to a proactive state of “enjoying welfare.” Strengthening Provisions Against Animal CrueltyTo address the generally perceived inadequacy of deterrent penalties under current law, the government has proposed to strengthen penalties. The consultation document suggested that for serious offences of animal cruelty assessed through public prosecution, the maximum prison sentence could be increased to between 4 to 10 years, with fines potentially raised to between HK$200,000 and HK$2 million. Additionally, it is recommended to authorise courts to revoke or permanently disqualify convicted individuals from owning animals. Enhancing Enforcement Powers for Animal WelfareTo address the difficulties faced by enforcement officers in accessing private premises when animal abuse is suspected, the government has proposed granting authorised personnel the power to enter private premises for search without the owner’s consent when necessary. Upon discovering animals suffering or at risk of suffering, they may directly confiscate animals to ensure their welfare. The Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as a key stakeholder in animal welfare, welcomes and supports the government’s legislative direction, offering more specific and detailed professional recommendations. Raising Penalties to a Deterrent LevelAlthough the government has proposed increasing penalties, the Society explicitly recommends that the maximum penalty for animal abuse be raised to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$2 million, to achieve a genuine deterrent effect. Expanding the Scope of the “Duty of Care”The Society suggests that the act of abandoning animals should be clearly included as a violation of the “duty of care.” Furthermore, actions such as releasing animals into inappropriate environments, performing unnecessary procedures that cause harm (such as tail docking or declawing), and poisoning animals should also be clearly defined as abuse or prohibited in the new legislation. Establishing a More Comprehensive Law Enforcement and Judicial FrameworkThe Society recommends establishing an “on-the-spot fine” mechanism to handle minor violations and introducing a compensation system requiring convicted individuals to pay for the treatment and care of the affected animals. Concurrently, the current six- month prosecution time limit should be extended, and training for enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges should be strengthened to ensure the new laws are effectively implemented Based on the analysis of the consultation document and expert opinions, to transform the good intentions of this amendment into effective tools for animal protection, we believe it is essential to focus on several key points. First, clear and high-standard legal criteria for animal welfare must be established. The “duty of care” cannot remain at a purely principled level. The government should reference overseas experiences to formulate and publish a specific “Animal Welfare Practice Code” that clearly defines the basic needs of different animals in terms of diet, environment, health, and behaviour, allowing responsible individuals to have clear guidelines and enforcement officers to have lawful basis. Second, penalties must genuinely correspond to the severity of the offences. We support raising the maximum penalty to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$2 million, which not only serves to deter extreme cruel acts but also conveys a clear message to society that “animal abuse is a serious crime.” Additional penalties such as disqualification from animal ownership and the introduction of a compensation mechanism can achieve a fuller sense of justice. Furthermore, enforcement agencies must be