Punishing Abusers Is Not Enough: What Ombudsman’s Animal Cruelty Report Misses

While the Hong Kong Ombudsman's report on animal cruelty is a step in the right direction, it fundamentally misses the mark by prioritizing punishment over prevention. The report, prompted by horrific abuse cases, correctly identifies institutional deficiencies within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), such as inefficient investigations and a shockingly low prosecution rate – only six out of 1,633 reports led to prosecution between 2020 and June 2025. This statistic alone is damning, despite the AFCD's claims that many reports are noise or nuisance complaints.

“

The report was prompted by a series of horrifying abuse cases which, in the Ombudsman’s own words, “amount to a deliberate trampling on the dignity of life and run wholly contrary to the very conscience of a civilised society.”

The Ombudsman's findings also point to weak enforcement powers, inconsistent handling of cases, inadequate staff training, and delayed reforms to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. The penalties for illegal animal traps are alarmingly low, with a maximum fine of HK$50,000 and no provision for imprisonment. These are critical issues that animal advocates have long highlighted, and credit is due for bringing them to light.

“

Out of 1,633 reports of suspected animal cruelty from 2020 to June 2025, only six prosecutions were brought – a striking, though not new, statistic.

However, the report's most glaring limitation is its ambivalence towards implementing a 'duty of care.' This concept, which would shift the legal framework from reacting to cruelty to proactively preventing suffering, is acknowledged but not strongly urged. This hesitation is a critical oversight. Without a 'duty of care,' Hong Kong's approach remains reactive, focusing on punishing offenders after the fact rather than creating a system that prevents abuse from occurring in the first place. This reactive stance allows for the normalization of everyday forms of animal suffering that are pervasive across the city.

“

The AFCD responded to the Ombudsman, saying that the majority of reports it received pertained to noise or nuisance complaints rather than cruelty.

This article argues that the Ombudsman's report, while valuable, fails to address the deeper, structural issues. The focus on punishment, without a robust preventive framework like a 'duty of care,' means that Hong Kong continues to fall short in its commitment to animal welfare. The normalization of animal plight, often overlooked in official reports, requires a more comprehensive and proactive approach than what has been presented. The current system allows for too many animals to suffer before any action is taken, a reality that a truly civilized society should strive to eliminate.

“

But while the report has identified some of the government’s major failures, it also reveals a deeper problem: Hong Kong’s approach to animal welfare remains fundamentally reactive rather than preventive, with most suggestions focusing on punishment, not prevention.