The plight of endangered species will also be safeguarded by domestic law and the international treaties to which Hong Kong is a party. Is this enough? Though the territory's fauna are unlikely to cheer the transition to Chinese sovereignty in 18 months' time, they have little to celebrate now. Not only is our admirable statutory framework enforced sporadically, but even when offenders are apprehended and convicted (a daunting task that is beyond the capacity of the few government and RSPCA inspectors) the sentences they receive are of doubtful deterrent effect. The law has plainly failed to keep up with inflation and the extent of the abuse of animals for profit in Hong Kong.

The rapid growth in pet owning has both positive and negative effects. While encouraging a better understanding of and respect for animals, it has also increased their suffering. Domestic animals are, of course, only a small part of the problem, but the disturbing combination of commercial exploitation of pets and the irresponsibility of many owners poses intractable difficulties for both the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the RSPCA who attempt to bring offenders to book. In the case of the commercialisation of pets, the heart of the matter is their breeding and hawking.

The former is unregulated by the law. 'Animal traders' are legally controlled, but the term is defined so as to exclude the sale of pets 'or any offspring thereof' - a gaping lacuna through which most hawkers pass without difficulty. To 'hawk' an animal or bird is an offence, but the fine of $2,000 on conviction is not likely to prevent hawkers from plying their trade when they can make more than this amount on a single sale. It is hard to avoid the impression that the law is utterly failing to deter the growing practice of rearing and selling of pets - and the suffering this enterprise generates. In one recent example, the operator of a Yuen Long breeding farm who, when the market in pets fell, left 25 animals to suffer and starve in squalor, is reported to have been fined a mere $900 and given a two-month suspended prison sentence.

Only four of the animals survived. Some were in such an appalling condition they had to be destroyed on the spot. It is rash, in the absence of the detailed facts available to a court, to criticise the punishment imposed. But the ordinance in question does provide for a maximum fine of $5,000 and six months' imprisonment. It would not be unreasonable to have expected a significantly tougher penalty. Breeding inevitably leads to hawking. The pattern is a familiar one. A 'cute' kitten or puppy is bought on impulse from a hawker on the street. A few days after the purchase, the animal becomes ill (few have been vaccinated against the infections which undeveloped immune systems are unable to fight) and it is discarded or destroyed.

Many owners say they are 'too busy' to look after the animal. Last year the RSPCA had to kill nearly 12,000 abandoned dogs and cats - a thousand a month. Sentencing is a complex and delicate subject particularly susceptible to public passions. In the face of what seems inescapably to be a rise in the number of offences involving animals, however, the case for the use of exemplary, deterrent punishment is difficult to resist. If a breeder or hawker of pets can pocket $2,000 or more on the sale of an animal, he is not likely to be deterred even by the current maximum fine. Convicted hawkers have recently received fines of as little as $200. Something is grotesquely amiss when a parking offence attracts a heavier fine than conduct that causes pain and suffering to another living creature.

The time has come to increase the maximum fine of $5,000 for the offence of cruelty and the maximum fine of $2,000 for failing to provide proper shelter. The figures should reflect the gravity of the crime and deter the offender and others from similar acts. The urgent need to protect highly endangered species against those who wish to eat them, has recently resulted in penalties being raised to as much as $5 million plus two years' imprisonment for the sale of these animals, and up to $500,000 plus a year's imprisonment for the sale of items derived from them.

Only last week a pangolin, salamander, five owls, and three otter carcasses, among other 'delicacies', were seized in markets in Kowloon. The live animals were imprisoned in tiny cages and buckets. It can only be hoped that the offenders will be charged and, if convicted, punished with the full severity of the law.

Legislation is now also imperative to regulate the breeding of pets. If the Government is unwilling to introduce a bill, I hope a private member of Legco may recognise the need, but I am not optimistic. The courts are naturally disinclined to impose custodial sentences in these cases, but where serious suffering has been inflicted on an animal, there is a powerful argument to be made in favour of sending convicted offenders to prison.

LIKE much crime, there is a socio-economic dimension. It is normally the poor who, regarding an animal as simply yet another commodity by which to make money, resort to these practices. In many cases the animal in question has been left for long periods without water, causing considerable distress or death. And, while negligent rather than intentional acts are often the source of animals' suffering, it is hard to accept that breeders and hawkers are unaware of the pain they cause - especially when they blithely abandon their merchandise.

Education is plainly necessary but not sufficient: the law must speak loudly and unequivocally. In the absence of compelling mitigating circumstances (which are hard to imagine), those convicted of offences of cruelty should not be treated with the leniency that appears to characterise current judicial practice. Thus in one recent case, the defendant who had attacked some dogs with a metal bar was fined $500. In another, a dog was left in direct sunlight despite an RSPCA inspector's advice. Severe heat stress necessitated the humane destruction of the animal. The defendant was fined $1,000.

The list is lamentably a long one . . . The recent enforcement of the ban on pet-keeping in government housing estates and the introduction of similar prohibitions by many private developments, has aggravated the problem of unwanted animals. Those that are not destroyed roam the streets in a pathetic search for food. Disease is rife. The dogs form packs which may threaten other animals and humans. Many pups are now being imported into the territory from China. Apart from the suffering involved in this new trade, the prospect of the spread of rabies (recently eliminated here) is real.

Clearly, it is not only human IIs that border controls need to monitor. Two arguments are often heard when the subject of animal welfare is raised in Hong Kong. First, it is claimed that concern for animals is a Western preoccupation, alien to Oriental cultures. Secondly, it is suggested that this disquiet is misplaced. Human beings, it is contended, are manifestly more important. Energy spent on animal causes is better directed against human suffering.

Neither argument cuts much ice. The first, even if true, is a dangerous one. Would we wish to justify, say, female infanticide on the ground that it is regarded by a certain culture as acceptable? When cultural practices inflict harm or suffering they become extremely difficult, if not impossible, to defend. This sort of cultural relativism (disingenuously packaged as 'Asian values') seeks also to justify cruelty to humans. It is no less intolerable when it is applied to our treatment of animals. The second view seems to be driven by the idea that those who are engaged in animal rights or welfare activities either subordinate human interests to animal interests, or that they have a pathological indifference towards human beings.

In my experience the opposite tends to be true. Individuals involved in the animal welfare movement are frequently dedicated as well to the alleviation of suffering of the oppressed or disadvantaged. Even if this were not so, our concern for animals is inseparable from our anxiety about the ravages we continue to inflict on our environment, and the consequences of this damage on all living things. Raymond Wacks is Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong

SCMP 24th December 1995.

Copyright © 1997 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Any redistribution of this information without permission is strictly prohibited.

[Permission gratefully acknowledged].