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.

1. The Contribution of Working Animals and the Current Institutional Dilemma
   
   The value of working animals extends far beyond their functionality. Taking detector dogs as an example, since their introduction in the 1970s, they have become a crucial frontline defence in intercepting drugs from entering our communities. For the visually impaired, a guide dog is not merely a mobility tool but a key partner and emotional companion critical for rebuilding independent living and social integration. These animals dedicate the prime years of their lives to public service, and their work inherently carries specific occupational risks, such as exposure to hazardous materials, and the physical strain and potential injury from searching in complex environments. Yet, an examination of the current situation reveals that our protection for them remains at the highly flexible and non-transparent level of ‘internal guidelines’.
   
   Currently, guidelines for managing and caring for working dogs are formulated independently by their respective user departments, typically covering daily care, diet, and rest arrangements. This may appear comprehensive but conceals several issues. Firstly, these guidelines lack uniform standards and statutory authority. Their effectiveness depends entirely on departmental resources and the conscientiousness of handlers, raising concerns about inconsistent treatment – ‘different fates for dogs in similar roles’. Secondly, the content often focuses on basic husbandry, while critical aspects of ‘occupational safety protection’ – such as specific risk assessments for different roles (e.g., drug detection, search and rescue, fire investigation), maximum consecutive working hours and mandatory rest standards, regular professional health check-ups (especially screening for occupation-specific injuries), and protective measures during high-risk operations – are either vaguely addressed or entirely absent. This situation effectively places animals at unnecessary risk and contravenes the moral duty we bear as the responsible party.
   
2. The Institutional Gap in Post-Retirement Welfare: The Distance from ‘Humane Measures’ to ‘Institutionalised Rights’
   
   If the inadequacy of in-service protection is concerning, the lives of working animals after retirement reveal the fragility of the system even more starkly. Presently, some departments, such as the Police Force and the Correctional Services Department, operate adoption schemes allowing staff or qualified members of the public to apply to adopt retired dogs. Handlers typically have priority, but due to personal reasons such as living environments, not all dogs can be cared for by their most familiar partner. For the fortunate dogs that are adopted, their quality of life in later years hinges almost entirely on the adoptive family’s financial means and compassion. Those not adopted remain in departmental kennels to ‘live out their days’.
   
   The problems with this arrangement are evident: it is a ‘measure’ reliant on human goodwill, not an adequately resourced ‘institution’. The most critical challenge is medical costs. As working dogs age, joint deterioration, sensory decline, and various chronic illnesses follow, incurring significant medical expenses. However, whether adopted or retained by the department, these substantial and inevitable costs lack dedicated public funding support. Adoptive families or departmental operational budgets may face heavy pressure, directly impacting the quality of medical care the animals receive. The situation is even more acute for working animals outside government departments, such as guide dogs. Visually impaired users of guide dogs, while not paying the initial training costs, are responsible for the daily food and medical expenses of the dog during its service and after retirement. When these socially contributing animals require expensive treatment for age-related ailments, financial pressure may force adoptive families or users into difficult decisions. Their dignity in old age should not be subject to a test of economic means – this is not the hallmark of a responsible society.
   
3. Policy Reform Proposals: Constructing a Whole-Life-Cycle Welfare Framework
   
   Confronted with these challenges, piecemeal adjustments are insufficient. We must establish, through legislation and policy planning, a whole-life-cycle welfare framework for working animals, ‘from recruitment to end of life’. To this end, we propose the following specific recommendations:
   
   First, formulate and legislate a Code of Practice for the Management and Welfare of Government Working Animals. The government should lead an inter-departmental effort to draft a unified, detailed, and legally binding Code of Practice, referencing international standards. This Code must be enacted into law, becoming a statutory standard all departments must follow. Core content should include:

1. Occupational Safety Standards: Clearly define risk levels for various roles, establish maximum daily and weekly working hours, mandatory rest periods, protective requirements during operations, and specify regular occupational health check-up items and frequency.
   
2. Post-Retirement Welfare Provisions: Institutionalise and bring transparency to existing adoption schemes, and establish a ‘Working Animal Retirement Welfare Fund’. This fund should be set up with public funding, specifically to subsidise the lifelong medical expenses of retired working animals (whether adopted or department-retained), particularly covering diagnosis, treatment, and medication for common age-related illnesses, allowing them to enjoy their retirement without anxiety.

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’.