Recently, society has expressed distress and outrage over several tragedies involving neglect of animals, once again exposing the serious flaws in Hong Kong’s animal protection laws. The current “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance,” established in the 1930s, has always been centered on “punishment after the fact”: the law can only intervene after abusive behavior occurs and can be proven to have been done “intentionally” to inflict unnecessary suffering. This framework is often powerless against the immense suffering experienced by animals due to ignorance, indifference, or long-term neglect — such as lack of proper diet and shelter, untreated illness, or long-term confinement that robs them of their nature. The law has become a belated “cleaner,” unable to fulfill its role as a proactive “guardian.”

To reverse this predicament, the fundamental approach lies in promoting a paradigm shift in the law from “preventing cruelty” to “ensuring welfare.” Among these changes, the introduction of the principle of “due diligence” is widely regarded as a key step toward reform. However, the transplantation of this legal concept is far from a simple matter of “transcribing words”; its success depends on whether we can achieve detailed, practical, and forward-looking legislative preparation at this critical juncture in 2017.

• The Essence and Superiority of “Due Diligence”
  
  “Due diligence” is not an empty slogan; it requires those responsible for animal welfare (including owners, breeders, sellers, and institutional managers) to take proactive and reasonable measures to safeguard the animal’s basic welfare needs. This essentially transforms the internationally recognized “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 legally binding responsibilities.
  
  The core of this transformation lies in shifting the focus of the law from “Did you subject the animal to cruel treatment?” to “Have you fulfilled your duty to ensure the animal’s basic welfare?” This means that even if the owner did not actively abuse the animal, they could still be held legally accountable for violating “due diligence” if the animal suffers from malnutrition, lives in poor conditions, or is plagued by diseases due to long-term negligence. This is a crucial step in transitioning animals from being legally regarded as “property of humans” to being recognized as living beings that need protection for their inherent welfare.
  
• Core Challenges Facing Legislative Technical Preparation
  
  In the context of Hong Kong’s legal and social environment, successfully introducing “due diligence” faces several technical challenges that must be meticulously studied before legislation:
  
  • Clarification and Differentiation of Responsibility Standards: What constitutes “appropriate” diet, environment, or medical care? Different species (dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, as well as economic animals, exhibition animals) have vastly different natures and needs. Legal texts cannot detail every aspect, so it is necessary to explore how to issue authoritative, easy-to-understand guidelines or manuals that translate principle-based responsibilities into specific operational standards for different situations. This requires close collaboration among veterinary science, animal behavior experts, and legal professionals.
    
  • Scientific Definition of Application Scope: Which animals and responsible parties should be covered by “due diligence”? Beyond common pet owners, how should this apply to commercial breeding facilities, pet shops, zoos, research institutions, and even large organizations like racing clubs? The knowledge, ability, and resource discrepancies among different responsible parties are significant; should tiered responsibility standards be established? These definitions are directly related to the fairness and enforceability of the laws.
    
  • Design of Enforcement Mechanisms and Resource Allocation: After introducing “due diligence,” the role of enforcement agencies (like the AFCD) will expand from investigating “crimes already committed” to supervising “ongoing welfare states.” This requires researching and establishing new enforcement tools, such as a “Notice to Improve” system, to correct minor violations initially. Additionally, it is essential to evaluate and plan for the necessary staffing, professional training, and patrol resources, avoiding situations where the law becomes ineffective due to inadequate enforcement power.
    
  • Integration with the Current Legal Framework: The new principles need to seamlessly integrate with existing legal provisions (such as prosecution thresholds, defenses, and penalties). For example, how should serious suffering caused by violations of “due diligence” connect with or distinguish itself from existing “cruelty” offenses? How should penalties be designed to achieve educational, corrective, and deterrent effects?
    
• Forward-Looking Legislative Preparation Recommendations
  
  To ensure that legislative amendments genuinely enhance animal welfare, rather than being superficial, we propose the following recommendations for legislative technical preparation:
  
  • First, initiate interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder pre-research. The government should immediately commission a team of experts in animal welfare science, law, and sociology to conduct localized research on the aforementioned challenges, referencing the technical details of mature legal systems like the UK’s 2006 Animal Welfare Act, and to draft a detailed “Legislative Framework Feasibility Report.
    
  • Second, develop a phased, modular legislative roadmap. Given the complexity of reforms, a gradual approach may be considered. For instance, the first phase could set relatively clear core provisions and accompanying guidelines for companion animals regarding “due diligence”; after accumulating experience, it could then expand to other categories of animals and responsible parties. This will help control legislative difficulty and allow society to gradually adapt.
    
  • Furthermore, plan administrative and social support in advance. Concurrently with drafting the bill, training courses for enforcement personnel, public education campaigns should be designed, and the feasibility of establishing an “Animal Welfare Support Fund” should be explored, to provide basic assistance to owners in genuine economic difficulties, reflecting the dual objectives of responsibility and compassion in the law.

Conclusion

2017 is a critically important year for the modernization of Hong Kong’s animal welfare law. The introduction of the principle of “due diligence” is a complex legal endeavor whose success hinges on details. We urge the Hong Kong government to demonstrate decisiveness, to invest professional resources immediately, and to conduct in-depth, transparent legislative technical preparation work. At the same time, we call on Legislative Council members and all sectors of society to pay close attention to and participate actively in this process, providing rational suggestions. Only through meticulous preparation based on scientific principles can we successfully translate this noble legal concept into a solid shield protecting every life in Hong Kong, truly achieving a civilizational leap from “not abusing” to “protecting welfare.”