Letters | Give Hong Kong’s animal welfare law teeth by adding duty of care

A duty of care means that those responsible for animals, such as pet owners or shop operators, must take reasonable steps to ensure their welfare. This includes providing suitable nutrition, a safe environment and protection from pain and suffering. Unlike Hong Kong’s existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, which is often read as allowing intervention only after mistreatment has occurred, a duty of care framework would proactively prevent harm.

Currently, the authorities tend to only act after a serious offence has been committed, such as when animals die from neglect. Research led by Amanda Whitford, an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong, found that the authorities failed to prosecute some negligence cases when animals were found underweight but not yet starved, making a cruelty conviction unlikely. A duty of care law would encourage prosecution of those failing to meet basic welfare standards.

Incorporating a duty of care would clearly allow intervention before severe suffering occurs, making ours a preventive system rather than a reactive one.

Another application of the principle pertains to Hong Kong’s high-rise buildings. Many cat owners do not install protective screens on balconies or windows, despite the well-documented risk of mishaps and falls. Earlier this month, police arrested a man in Tai Po after his cat fell to its death. A duty of care law would facilitate intervention before such tragedies occur.

Thus, imposing a duty of care has two major benefits: it clearly allows the authorities to intervene before serious harm occurs and encourages pet owners to take proactive responsibility for their animals’ welfare. Animal laws should not merely penalise misconduct but also prevent suffering before it takes place.