Letter of the law
Our current animal welfare laws are based on British legislation enacted nearly 100 years ago and are considerably out of the line with international standards. In addition to identifying the breeding loophole (see Feature), HKU’s recent Review into Animal Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong also highlights several other amendments that are required to achieve any sort of parity with those overseas regulations. Here are four of the most significant.
Require some care
Current cruelty laws remain based on 1911 standards. The UK has recently amended their laws to recognise that people have a duty to care for animals, which is imposed on people regardless of whether they were the legal owner of the animal. Such a change in Hong Kong would prevent people pleading ignorance in starvation and negligence cases.
Guilty your Honour, but I still got my shop
Even in the event of a pet store owner’s blatant breach of the animal welfare legislation, the AFCD lacks the power to revoke licences upon conviction. An amendment to allow such a stripping is fundamental to the protecting animals in danger.
Everything’s fine
The penalty for animal cruelty may have been significantly increased in 2006, but the fines for breaching a licence condition ($1,000) and trading or breeding without a licence ($2,000) remain measly. The AFCD is currently proposing to raise the penalties for these offences respectively to $50,000 and $100,000, a move that should act as a significant deterrent to flagrant breaches.
Give us some space
When it comes to pet shop enclosures, the current law only requires that animals be able to “move about freely and stand, sit, lie and perch comfortably”, without specifically outlining a minimum cage size. In contrast, US states and Australia outline detailed regulations for enclosure sizes in relation to cats, dogs and rabbits. Such laws should be introduced to ensure that, while waiting for that perfect owner, animals are subject to a reasonable level of comfort.
Phyllis Lui
Add your comment