On a weekend morning at Victoria Park, a citizen carefully walks his beloved dog, knowing that ahead lies an area where pets are prohibited; meanwhile, not far away on the waterfront promenade, another dog owner finds himself in an awkward explanation with staff—when will this city truly embrace their companionship? As pet ownership becomes increasingly common among families in Hong Kong, a growing contradiction confronts us: laws and public policies lag significantly behind societal developments and citizen needs. In 2020, more than 240,000 households in Hong Kong owned cats and dogs, viewing them as family members, yet they face numerous restrictions in public spaces. From revisions to the Road Traffic Ordinance, to the stringent limitations imposed by the Food Business Regulation, to various prohibitions under park management regulations, the current framework systematically excludes companion animals from public life. This exclusion not only affects the quality of life and consumer choices for pet owners but also reflects a deeper deficiency in the inclusivity and modernity of urban governance. For Hong Kong to become a truly civilized and friendly international metropolis, a systematic policy reform is needed—from “traffic responsibility” to “spatial inclusivity.” The ongoing discussions around amending the Road Traffic Ordinance to protect cats and dogs provide an important insight: the advancement of law can elevate the care for life from moral initiatives to social responsibilities. However, existing regulations address remedies after harm has occurred, while a truly friendly city should aim to create an environment and culture that prevents harm from occurring in the first place. In 2020, Hong Kong stands at a new crossroads for animal welfare policy. We call on the government, the Legislative Council, public service operators, and all citizens to acknowledge this increasingly prominent social issue collectively. Through rational discussion, scientific assessment, and step-by-step reforms, we have the capability to gradually dismantle those outdated invisible barriers while safeguarding public health and respecting diverse needs. Building an animal-friendly city aims not just to allow pets into public spaces but to cultivate a more inclusive, empathetic, and intelligently governed urban civilization. This path requires patience, creativity, and collaboration, but each step forward will make our city warmer, more livable, and truly belong to all life that calls this place home. Now is the best time to initiate this necessary change.

One morning on Lamma Island, a street cat with a clipped ear gracefully walks past the pier and disappears around the corner. At the same time, on a trail in Yuen Long’s Tai Tong, several stray dogs bark at each other over food scraps. Their fates are guided by two distinct management logics, with the latter mired in significant controversies between policy and practice. Hong Kong’s management of stray animals stands at a critical crossroads. As of 2020, nearly two years have elapsed since the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) concluded its three-year trial program for stray dogs known as “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR). The program, initiated in 2015 in Cheung Chau and Tai Tong, aimed to evaluate the method’s effectiveness in controlling the stray dog population and reducing community nuisance. However, an evaluation report submitted to the Legislative Council by independent consultants in 2018 revealed that the trial “failed to achieve the intended effectiveness indicators.” This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the immense success of the “Community Cat Care Program” (CCCP) implemented by the Hong Kong SPCA since 2000—where over 86,000 cats have been neutered and cat euthanasia has decreased by 90%. This contradiction points to a deeper issue: should Hong Kong continue to follow a vague and generic “stray animal” management policy? Or should it establish a more refined, scientific classification management system based on the differing biological characteristics, social roles, and management realities of cats and dogs? The stray animal issue in Hong Kong fundamentally remains a human issue—a consequence of abandonment, neglect, and irresponsibility. In 2020, we are not only faced with how to handle lives that have already gone astray, but also with making choices that will lead to a more responsible societal future. Continuing to spin within old debates or oscillating between the extremes of “total culling” and “simple return” will not help resolve the issue. We must have the courage to acknowledge that different management philosophies may be required for cats and dogs; the wisdom to construct a complete chain from source prevention to end placement; and the determination to push for the necessary updates in laws and systems. When we see street cats aging peacefully on Lamma Island or find warm homes for stray dogs in Yuen Long, it will not only signify a victory for animal welfare but also mark a mature and firm step for Hong Kong as a civilized society in respecting life, employing scientific governance, and embracing responsibility. This path, while complex, is worth pursuing with full commitment.

In 2019, an “animal shelter” in a village house in Hong Kong was exposed, where nearly a hundred dogs were kept, with 20 having already died, and the survivors forced to resort to cannibalism for survival. Despite such a horrifying scene, the person responsible only received a sentence of 160 hours of community service. This case is not an isolated incident; it is a microcosm of the difficulties faced by animal abuse cases at both enforcement and judicial levels in Hong Kong. Research conducted by the Law Faculty of the University of Hong Kong in collaboration with the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals revealed that among 335 suspected animal abuse cases examined from 2013 to 2019, over 170 cases (more than 50%) ultimately did not proceed to prosecution. The research further indicated that in severe animal abuse cases, less than half of the defendants were imprisoned, with an average sentence of only 2.4 months. Behind these numbers lies a systematic failure. The handling of reported cases resembles a sieve full of holes: high evidentiary thresholds, short prosecution timelines, fragmented enforcement authority, and penalties lacking deterrent effects create numerous barriers, resulting in many cases failing to enter the judicial process or receiving overly lenient punishments upon conviction. This is not only a crisis for animal welfare but also a challenge to the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong. The life of a law lies in its enforcement. A law that cannot bring criminals to justice or compel them to pay the corresponding costs is essentially meaningless. In 2020, Hong Kong faces a systemic failure in prosecuting animal abuse cases. What is needed is not piecemeal fixes but a profound reform that traverses the entire “investigation-prosecution-sentencing” chain. From empowering law enforcement with sufficient authority and time to investigate, to closing legal loopholes that give a basis for prosecution, and establishing clear and severe sentencing standards to uphold justice, each step is crucial. This effort is not only to protect voiceless animals but also to defend our society’s inherent respect for life and its bottom line. We call on the government, the Legislative Council, and the judiciary to confront these issues head-on and adopt the aforementioned practical and urgent reform proposals. Only by establishing an efficient, equitable, and deterrent judicial system can we break the cycle of abuse and truly make Hong Kong a city that is friendly to all life.

A shop owner in Yuen Long tied a dog outside the shop for a long time, exposing it to sun and rain, leading to severe dehydration and skin lesions, which was uncovered by passersby. However, when enforcement officers arrived, they found it difficult to immediately classify the situation as “cruelty” because the dog had “a shaded area” and “a water bowl,” and ultimately could only offer verbal advice. This is not an isolated incident but rather reflects the daily reality faced by animals in Hong Kong. In 2019, the government launched a public consultation to comprehensively revise the Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 169), with strong public reaction advocating for the introduction of “reasonable duty” and strengthened enforcement powers. A year after the consultation period ended, in April 2020, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) reported the results and future directions to the Legislative Council, stating that it was “preparing to draft legislative proposals for revisions.” However, the crucial step from “preparing to draft” to actually submitting the bill to the Legislative Council has yet to occur. As of 2020, the draft has not been scheduled in the legislative agenda. The commitment to amend the law has ground to a halt, and progress in animal welfare remains trapped in bureaucratic procedures. The public consultation in 2019 fostered a clear social consensus and a concrete blueprint for reform. Core recommendations included three groundbreaking reforms: First, the introduction of “reasonable duty.” This would fundamentally change the legal basis for animal protection in Hong Kong, shifting from a passive punishment for “cruelty” to a proactive requirement for animal caretakers (including owners, breeders, sellers, etc.) to actively ensure the welfare of animals, encompassing their dietary, environmental, health, and behavioral needs. Those failing to fulfill this responsibility could receive improvement notices or even face prosecution. Second, significantly increasing penalties and introducing breeding bans. It was recommended that courts be authorized to revoke the breeding qualifications of animal abusers to prevent re-offending. Lastly, strengthening enforcement powers. Granting enforcement officers the authority to enter premises in emergencies to rescue and seize animals would address the current dilemma of watching animals suffer without being able to intervene. In April 2020, the government confirmed these directions during its report to the Legislative Council. Ironically, the report itself became the “last progress update.” Since then, the legislative work has been mired in a state of “only hearing the stair sounds.” The end of the public consultation highlighted not the end, but rather a significant administrative gap between “consensus” and “legislation.” The core flaw of the current Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance lies in its extremely high burden of proof and passivity. The law focuses on punishing extreme, deliberate acts of “cruelty,” but is nearly powerless in addressing more commonplace and insidious issues of “neglect” or “long-term deprivation of welfare.” For example, imprisoning a dog in a small cage for life without providing social opportunities, leading to psychological abnormalities, is unlikely to result in conviction under the old legal framework. Enforcement officers also lack the authority to immediately act in cases where animals are in imminent danger. Consequently, many animals live in long-term suffering until their health deteriorates or they die before the law can intervene. This sense of impotence, of “not saving those in distress,” torments not only the animals but also demoralizes law enforcers and concerned citizens alike. Therefore, legislative reform is not merely a enhancement; it is essential to plug a systemic loophole that causes animal suffering every day. Delaying reform day by day means more animals suffer unnecessarily without protection. The 2019 consultation has clearly laid out the prescription; the stagnation of 2020 is a deliberate oversight of the malady. The process from policy study to legal draft should ideally be transparent and traceable. However, this reform has fallen into “black box operations” after the report. Its stagnation may stem from several aspects: Firstly, the department-led legislative process lacks public oversight. After reporting to the Legislative Council, the public has no way of knowing when drafting will be completed, whether the content of the draft has regressed, or what internal resistance may have arisen. This makes the drive for progress easily dissipate within the government.Secondly, inter-departmental coordination and resource competition may lead to internal friction. Legislative reform involves enforcement powers and prosecution procedures, implicating several departments, including the police, the Department of Justice, and the AFCD, all of which require long-term manpower and resource investment for the supervision of “reasonable duty.” The power struggles and resource concerns among departments can indefinitely delay a bill. Thirdly, the political priority of the legislative agenda is often marginalized. Among numerous economic and livelihood issues, animal welfare legislation is easily regarded as a “non-urgent” matter by administrative agencies if there is no sustained public pressure. These factors collectively result in a scenario where a reform with broad social consensus and mature technical recommendations is “studied” and “drafted” within the administrative system but ultimately fails to reach the legislative assembly for public deliberation. To break the deadlock, there must be no reliance on the government’s proactive awareness; instead, a robust public accountability mechanism must be established. We urge all sectors of society to take the following specific actions: Step One: Demand a transparent legislative timetable and regular progress reports. Civil society should unite to clearly request the government and the Legislative Council’s Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene Committee to publish a specific phased timeline for drafting the amendment bill and provide quarterly public progress reports. Accountability must begin with information transparency. Step Two: Launch a “one person, one letter” campaign to continuously pressure Legislative Council members.Legislative Council members play a crucial role in overseeing government actions. The public should systematically send letters and emails to their respective Legislative Council members, particularly those in the relevant committees, urging them to persistently inquire about the progress of the legislative reform in committee meetings, making this issue a regular agenda item. Step Three: Gather professional expertise to prepare a “public demonstration draft.” To prevent