Target: Tse Chin-wan, BBS, JP, Secretary for Environment and Ecology of Hong Kong
Goal: Strengthen penalties and close critical enforcement gaps that let animal abusers walk free.
Hong Kong’s Ombudsman has released findings from a direct investigation into how suspected animal cruelty cases are handled by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department — identifying significant areas for improvement in follow-up procedures, case monitoring, and file management. The AFCD has responded by updating departmental guidelines and committing to incorporate more specific criteria and indicators, but critics and legal experts have long argued that Hong Kong’s core animal welfare legislation — the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, Cap. 169 — remains a fundamentally outdated colonial-era law from 1935 that fails to reflect modern standards of animal protection. Current penalties carry a maximum fine of HK$200,000 and three years imprisonment, but prosecution rates are low, with a significant gap between reports of cruelty and cases reaching the courts.
Hong Kong has no positive “duty of care” for animal owners, no specific guidelines for investigating animal poisoning cases, and no prescribed time limit in its animal cruelty ordinance — meaning offenders can evade prosecution under the general six-month magistrates court limitation. The government has previously indicated it would study raising penalties for intentional harm to animals but has not set a legislative timetable. The Ombudsman’s findings provide fresh impetus for action that animal welfare advocates have long demanded.
The Secretary for Environment and Ecology must act on the Ombudsman’s findings without delay — not merely updating internal guidelines, but pursuing the full legislative reform that Hong Kong’s animals urgently need. Sign this petition to demand real and lasting change.
PETITION LETTER:
Secretary Tse Chin-wan, BBS, JP,
We are writing to urge your office to respond to the Ombudsman’s recent findings on animal cruelty case handling not merely with updated internal departmental guidelines, but with the comprehensive legislative and enforcement reforms that animal welfare advocates have long demanded and that Hong Kong’s animals urgently need. The Ombudsman’s direct investigation has identified significant failures in how suspected cruelty cases are followed up, monitored, and managed — and these findings must serve as the catalyst for fundamental reform, not incremental adjustment.
Hong Kong’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance dates from 1935 and is based on British legislation that the UK itself has long since replaced with a modern Animal Welfare Act. The absence of a positive duty of care, the lack of specific investigation protocols for poisoning cases, and the absence of a prescribed prosecution time limit in the ordinance itself all create enforcement gaps that allow a significant proportion of offenders to escape accountability. These are not marginal issues — they represent structural failures in the legal protection afforded to animals in Hong Kong.
We respectfully but firmly demand that your office implement all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations in full, set a clear and public legislative timetable for modernizing Cap. 169, introduce a positive duty of care, raise penalties for intentional animal harm, and develop specific investigation guidelines. The animals of Hong Kong deserve a legal framework that reflects the values of a modern, compassionate society — not a colonial ordinance that has not kept pace with the world.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo credit: Pixabay
