An elderly stray dog was found on the terrace of a village house in Sheung Shui, tied with a too-short chain, surrounded by piles of excrement, and its water bowl long dried up. When the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) personnel arrived, they faced a dilemma—under the current Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance, as long as the animal was not in obvious and immediate danger or visibly injured, such long-term neglect and deprivation of welfare often fail to meet the prosecution threshold for “cruelty.”

This scenario reveals a fundamental flaw in Hong Kong’s animal protection laws: the law punishes only after harm has occurred and is powerless to prevent it beforehand. In 2019, the Hong Kong government launched a public consultation on the amendment of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance, with one core proposal being the introduction of an active “Duty of Care.” By 2021, the legislative process regarding this paradigm shift had become a crucial gauge for measuring whether Hong Kong’s animal welfare could modernize.

In contrast to the international community, Hong Kong’s animal welfare legal framework remains stuck in the twentieth century. In over 100 countries and regions with established animal welfare laws, requiring owners or caretakers to fulfill an active “Duty of Care” has become the legislative mainstream, marking a leap from “prohibiting cruelty” to “ensuring welfare.”

• Legal Dilemma: Limitations of Passive Punishment
  The current Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 169) in Hong Kong is a typical “cruelty law.” Its core logic focuses on post-factum prosecution, punishing extreme behaviors that have already occurred, such as beating, torturing, or ill-treating animals.
  
  This legal design has several critical flaws: a high burden of proof, late intervention timing, and a narrow protection scope. Enforcement personnel must prove that the animal has suffered “unnecessary pain” and that the perpetrator acted with subjective intent. This makes many cases of long-term suffering due to ignorance, indifference, or neglect (such as prolonged confinement, lack of social interaction, and poor living conditions) fall into a gray area, unable to obtain legal relief.
  
  As a result, the law acts like a “late-arriving street sweeper,” only able to clean up the most severe aftermaths but unable to prevent countless ongoing, chronic deprivation of welfare. This passivity is severely disconnected from contemporary societal understanding of animal welfare.
  
• Paradigm Shift: The Core Concept of “Duty of Care”
  The introduction of “Duty of Care” aims to fundamentally reverse the aforementioned predicament. It not only asks, “What harm have you done to the animals?” but also requires caretakers to answer, “What good have you done for the animals’ welfare?”
  
  This concept originates from common law systems and has matured in legislation such as the UK’s Animal Welfare Act 2006. Its core focuses on converting the “Five Freedoms” of animals—freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, or disease; freedom to express normal behavior; and freedom from fear and distress—into statutory obligations that caretakers (including pet owners, animal sellers, breeders, etc.) must actively fulfill.
  
  This means providing sufficient suitable food and clean water, ensuring a safe and comfortable living environment, obtaining necessary treatment when sick or injured, and providing opportunities to express natural behaviors will no longer remain merely moral imperatives but become legal requirements. Failure to fulfill these responsibilities will constitute an offense, allowing enforcement agencies to intervene before severe damage to animal welfare occurs.
  
• Why It’s Feasible: The Reality of Introducing “Duty of Care” in Hong Kong Pushing for “Duty of Care” legislation in Hong Kong is not a fanciful endeavor; it is built on a solid foundation of social and policy reality.
  
  • First, a social consensus has formed. With the increasing number of households owning pets, public awareness of animal welfare has long surpassed the basic level of “not abusing” animals. Citizens generally recognize that owners should take full responsibility for the care of their animals throughout their lives, providing a substantial foundation for legal reform.
    
  • Second, there is clear groundwork for governmental agendas. In April 2019, the Hong Kong SAR government officially listed the “introduction of proactive ‘Duty of Care'” as one of the core proposals for legislative amendments and initiated a three-month public consultation. The consultation document explicitly stated that officials would be authorized to issue “Improvement Notices” to those inadequately caring for animals and establish penalties for breaching this duty. This indicates that administrative willingness to change and legal technical preparation have already been in progress.
    
    Moreover, international models provide clear pathways. Various jurisdictions, like the UK, New Zealand, and Singapore, which have legal systems similar to Hong Kong’s, have successfully implemented “Duty of Care” laws for many years. Their experiences in defining responsibilities, specifying welfare standards, and outlining enforcement procedures can offer ready-to-adapt legislative blueprints for Hong Kong, significantly reducing legislative trial-and-error costs.
    
• Legislative Key: Constructing an Enforceable “Duty of Care” Framework
  To turn “Duty of Care” from an idea into an effective legal tool, the legislative design must be detailed and actionable. The following points are crucial:
  
  • Define Responsibilities and Scope Clearly: The law must clearly define “responsible parties,” including not only pet owners but also breeders, sellers, temporary caregivers, and managers of animal exhibitions, as well as enterprises employing working animals. The range of applicable animals should be as broad as possible, covering at least all common companion animals and economic animals.
    
  • Establish Specific Welfare Practice Guidelines: The legal text should not be overly fragmented. The best practice is to use subsidiary legislation or officially published “Practical Guidelines” that specify what constitutes a “suitable environment,” “adequate diet,” and “natural behavior” across different types of animals (dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, etc.), using plain language and illustrations. This will guide the public while providing a unified standard for law enforcement.
    
  • Create a Tiered Enforcement and Penalty System: Enforcement should prioritize education and correction. For initial or minor violations, issuing “Improvement Notices” requiring timely corrections should suffice. For intentional, severe, or repeated violators, robust penalties should be instituted, including substantial fines, and consideration could be given to introducing additional penalties such as “cancellation of breeding licenses” to prevent habitual offenders from continuing to harm animals.
    
• Beyond Punishment: Parallel Support and Public Education Initiatives
  The success of the law relies on supportive systems. Alongside the introduction of “Duty of Care,” the following measures must be promoted:
  
  • Enhance Enforcement Capacity and Collaboration: The AFCD needs to increase the number of trained inspectors with professional animal welfare training and establish smoother case referral and collaboration mechanisms with the police and animal welfare organizations. A hotline or platform should be considered to facilitate public reporting of suspected negligence.
    
  • Launch Public Legal Education and Awareness Campaigns: The government should collaborate with animal welfare organizations, veterinary professionals, and educational institutions to initiate large-scale public education campaigns that translate the specific requirements of “Duty of Care” into easily understandable life guidelines. This education should begin in schools, integrating it into life education curricula.
    
  • Establish Animal Welfare Support Mechanisms: Some owners may struggle to fulfill these responsibilities due to financial difficulties or a lack of knowledge. The government could explore partnerships with NGOs to set up support funds to provide qualified low-income owners with subsidies for neutering, basic veterinary care, or pet supplies, reflecting the law’s dual emphasis on responsibility and compassion.

The introduction of “Duty of Care” is not just about adding a few clauses to the law. It represents a profound conceptual revolution—from viewing animals as mere commodities to recognizing them as sentient beings whose welfare needs to be actively ensured.

In 2021, Hong Kong stands at a crossroads for upgrading animal welfare policy. The public consultation in 2019 has paved the way for reform, and societal voices have never been clearer. Taking this step will align Hong Kong with the advanced animal welfare legal systems around the world; delaying it will mean that more animals silently endure unnecessary suffering within the gray areas of the law.

We call on the legislative body to seize this opportunity and quickly translate this already formed consensus for reform into enforceable legal provisions. Let us work together to transform Hong Kong from a city that merely “prevents cruelty” into a civilized society that actively “ensures welfare” and takes responsibility for all lives.