The reality of Hong Kong’s Animal Law

ARTICLE

The reality of Hong Kong’s Animal Law

Tiger – Head – Snake – Tail

The Chinese idiom ‘Tiger Head Snake Tail’ reflects the state of animal welfare protection in Hong Kong. Animal protection legislation which at the outset was both promising and powerful like a tiger’s head, has since transmuted into pure ineffectiveness. Nearly 90 years have passed since the introduction of Hong Kong’s first main animal protection law, and despite the passing of time, it has remained stagnant and void of any real bite.

Hong Kong’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, Cap 169 was enacted in 1935 and minimal amendments have been made to the Ordinance in its 87-year tenure. The few amendments that have been made have included a cursory increase in penalties for animal cruelty. However empirical data has concluded that the changes introduced fail to stem the number of animal cruelty cases in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong’s legislation remains entrenched in archaism, with language reflective of early 20th century concerns where animals were largely employed for agriculture and transportation. The tortious concept of a duty of care for a person responsible for an animal seen in comparable jurisdictions has yet to makes its way into local legislation and as a result, our Ordinance remains reactive rather than proactive.

Whilst increasing penalties for animal cruelty is inherently a positive step forward for Hong Kong, local legislation will remain toothless unless there is also the reciprocal enforcement of existing laws. Local law enforcement agencies still fail to see the villainous nature in offending against animals and consider it not to be a serious crime. This illogical belief leads not only to a reluctance to conduct proper investigations but also a disinterest by members of the public to report crimes involving animals.

Animal cruelty remains a summary offence lending itself to an almost unworkable 6-month time limit for police investigation and criminal charges to be brought. For the small percentage of cases that do end up in the judicial system, the lenient sentencing by Magistrates fails to create any deterrence.

The disinclination to give animal cruelty offending the proper care and dedication it warrants may very well be attributed to the mindset of locals. The continued belief that animals are only things, rather than sentient beings gives rise to a justified excuse for people to commit acts of cruelty against animals.

Pet ownership in Hong Kong is also low and many locals have never had positive experiences with animals. It is therefore unsurprising that there is a lack of empathy for animals here. This is why Hong Kong lawmakers and societal leaders need to lead by example, in order to create a more respectful society towards animals.

Speciesism is also significant contributor to a lack of legal enforcement for animal related cases. It is clear there exists an arbitrary hierarchy of animals here. Traditional companion animals such as dogs and cats are treated with greater genuflection in comparison with other less conventional pets.

Take for example the array of fish species and reptiles that are displayed for sale in tiny plastic bags for hours a day, without access to fresh air, food or space. These animals are continuously mishandled and prodded on a daily basis. But because they are ‘only’ fish, the law does not seem to take comeuppance with the way they are displayed and sold. This, despite the development of animal welfare science which continues to stress the sentience of fish, including their ability to feel pain and stress.

Legislation is always capable of being amended or replaced. However, the decision to do so in Hong Kong is catalysed by how important the Government considers they are to society. It is no secret that Hong Kong now exists in the era of the National Security Law which was quickly passed in 2020, and the coronavirus outbreak led to not only the introduction of different rules and regulations to prevent and control disease, but an ever-growing list of ‘necessary’ amendments which we still live with despite nearly in 2023. These were hurried additions to the repertoire of Hong Kong laws, punctually enacted because they were identified as important to Hong Kong. It is abundantly clear that if legislation is deemed ‘important’ enough by whomever is in charge at the time, lawmakers can perform with Olympic level speed.

The necessity for change to animal protection legislation has been consistently impressed upon the Hong Kong Government. Over a decade ago, Professor Amanda Whitfort and Dr. Fiona Woodhouse published their report “Review of Animal Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong” which underlined the deficiencies in local animal protection legislation and suggested necessary amendments. But despite best efforts advocating for change, the protection for animals (or rather lack thereof) remains practically the same.

However, to say that the Hong Kong Government doesn’t act swiftly on animal-centric issues is an unfair statement. Towards the end of 2021, due to an increase in unfavourable human interactions with wild boars, the Hong Kong Government revised its long-standing policy of trapping and neutering, opting instead of mass culling. The use of lethal measures to manage animal populations without first exhausting all other non-lethal methods were quickly and irrationally introduced, and unfortunately still continues. This exemplifies instantaneous actions being implemented when deemed desirable and important enough.

Hong Kong’s animal protection law is much like drawing a cake to satisfy one’s own hunger. Despite the existence of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, without making necessary amendments to strengthen existing law and to reflect advances in animal welfare science, it will be of limited practical effect.

Hong Kong is home to a rich and diverse ecosystem, and it is imperative that the Government plays its part to preserve and protect what we have. This can be simply achieved, but requires an overhaul of local legislation, proactive enforcement and the desire to protect animals.

As a society, we cannot remain voiceless as our animal law continues to lag further behind other comparable common law jurisdictions. We must be the voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.

The hope is that through persistent advocacy and awareness, Hong Kong’s animal law will once again be like a tiger’s head –ruthless rather than toothless. 

Kim J McCoy

Kim J McCoy

Barrister at Bernacchi Chambers (HK) Founder of the Hong Kong Animal Law and Protection Organisation (HKALPO)