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.

• Consensus Achieved, Where’s the Action? The 2020 Commitment to Reform and Current Reality

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.”

• Flaws of Old Laws: Why Legislative Reform Cannot Wait Any Longer?

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.

• Why is Legislative Reform Stalled? Analyzing the Black Box of Administrative Procedures

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.

• Breaking the Deadlock: Building an Effective Public Accountability and Action Framework

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 regression in the content of the proposed draft ultimately submitted by the government, animal welfare groups should collaborate with legal scholars, veterinarians, and behavioral experts to draft a detailed “public version of the amendment draft” based on the consensus from the 2019 consultation. This document can serve as a benchmark for evaluating the government’s draft quality and is also the best tool for clearly explaining the content of the reforms to the public and the media.

Step Four: Utilize data and individual cases for advocacy and dissemination. Systematically organize cases of animals that have suffered injustice due to the current legal loopholes into easily shareable graphics and short videos. Through social media and traditional media, repeatedly explain to the public “why the current law fails” and “how new laws can change everything,” transforming public indignation over individual events into firm support for systemic change

The law is the societal conscience’s baseline. A law enacted decades ago that cannot protect animals from suffering is incompatible with Hong Kong’s self-proclaimed image as a civilized international metropolis. The 2019 public consultation showcased clear public opinion, while the administrative stagnation of 2020 revealed that the real obstacles to reform lie not in consensus but in a lack of determination and accountability. The government’s silence and delay cost animals their suffering every day.

We urge all citizens concerned about animal welfare to stop passively waiting. Through informed action, voices, and organized accountability efforts, we have the capability to liberate this long-promised Animal Protection Law from bureaucratic drawers. Only when society forms an undeniable collective force can we break through procedural

inertia and create an animal protection code that befits this era for Hong Kong’s animals. Act now; do not let their waiting become endless.