Guest guest Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 Story 1 New Straits Times » Letters Threat to island’s treasures (MALAYSIA) Apr 23: I WAS alarmed to read Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu's announcement ( " Tioman airport upgrade " , NST, April 17) that the Cabinet has allocated RM150m to upgrade Tioman's existing airport, including a " 2,000m long and 45m wide runway which would be built on the sea " . The question those of us who have been to Tioman and enjoyed its underwater treasures are asking is: How much more development can the island take? More specifically, has an EIA report been submitted for the work? Has the carrying capacity of the island been taken into account? Have the various stakeholders been consulted? How sure are we that proper silt traps will be built to prevent run-offs into the sea? What about the impact of noise pollution? Such development will further damage and degrade the coral reefs and marine environment. I implore the decision-makers to take the time to experience for themselves the sheer beauty of the marine life in the oceans: colourful fishes, shrimps, corals. Their very existence is at stake, for we are dealing with an extremely sensitive environment. They have already been hit by coral bleaching due to rising temperatures. We should not further jeopardise their existence. Tioman island is unique not only in its marine life. A team of scientists from the US has been making annual visits to the island to conduct surveys and to record the biodiversity of the island. They have even discovered new species of reptiles unique to Tioman and are racing against time to record their finding before the creatures are lost to us forever. I was lucky enough to see a slide presentation of the flora and fauna that they captured on film. Amazing, colourful creatures that I had never seen before ...and all this in our backyard! It's great that we want to draw tourists to the island, but we should do it in a manner that is environmentally friendly. Building the airport will only do the opposite. J.L. Kuala Lumpur Story 2 New Straits Times » Letters Joint venture changes SPCA’s status (MALAYSIA) April 23: I READ with interest and concern the announcement that the Society For Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Kuala Lumpur City Hall will be jointly setting up a veterinary clinic, offering to neuter pets at low cost. At first glance, this marriage of convenience seems noble, but closer analysis of their inherently separate functions does not augur well. Strange bedfellows, really, one working on a template of conservation and the other on a mandate of destruction. City Hall's vector control unit is tasked with rounding up stray and unlicensed dogs. Some of these dogs are reclaimed by their owners, some are sold and the rest are put to sleep (destroyed). The SPCA, on the other hand, offers care and compassion to animals in general, especially those that are discarded or were subjected to cruelty by their owners. It canvasses for donations from individuals and corporate bodies and it has been granted tax-exempt status. By operating a full-time clinic, its status and that of the vector control unit changes. The charging of a fee and providing other services not in line with the original objectives render it a commercial enterprise. Hence, should the SPCA still enjoy its tax-free status? D.G. Kuala Lumpur New Straits Times » Letters SPCA-City Hall link is a good move April 30: AS a volunteer of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for many years, I am offended by D.G.'s baseless comments (NST, April 23) that an alliance with Kuala Lumpur City Hall in setting up a spay/neuter clinic " does not augur well " . " Catch and destroy " , the preferred method of controlling the stray dog population, carries a huge toll in terms of pain, suffering and trauma on the animals caught, not to mention the escalating financial costs associated with this method of operation. City Hall deserves to be commended for setting up a subsidised spay/neuter clinic with SPCA. Thousands of healthy dogs and cats are needlessly put to sleep every year because owners do not spay/neuter them due to, among others, negligence, procrastination, ignorance and saving expense. SPCAs all over the world operate full-service veterinary clinics to serve the public, concentrating on subsidised spaying/neutering as the most effective and humane way to control animal populations. Commercial enterprises are embarked upon with the main goal of creating profit and enhancing shareholder value with community service a distant second. By offering subsidised spaingy/neutering SPCA does not make a profit but instead provides a much needed service at a price most people can pay. Tax-exempt status accorded to NGOs provides an added incentive to tax-paying citizens to donate for a good cause and this status is deemed as recognition by the Government of worthy services offered to benefit its citizens. To question our taxexempt status is not only senseless but also cruel. CHRISTINE CHIN SPCA Selangor Story 3 No cruelty in shark harvest (Letter from Singapore to the S'pore Straits Times-April 19 2003) NOT all sharks are threatened with extinction. In fact, only two rare species are. Also, it is not true that cruel treatment is meted out when the fins are harvested. At the 12th Meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) held in Santiago, Chile, from Nov 3-15 last year, it was stated that sharks, by and large, are not endangered with the exception of two - the whale shark (Rhincodin typus) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) - included in Citses Appendix II which came into effect on Feb 13 in Singapore. As far as our association is aware, these two species of sharks are hardly traded in Singapore. So there is no justification to raise a hue and cry about eating sharks' fin in Singapore. Sharks are often hauled in by a tuna/sword-fish fishing fleet and the normal method used by fishermen is to electrocute them with an electric rod if they are still alive before harvesting the fins and cleaning the stomach, then freezing them. The major portion of meat is a valuable commercial product. It is stored in a huge refrigerator and is never discarded or thrown into the sea as alleged. DANNY YIO President Singapore Marine and Land Products Association Story 4 Can anyone refute this fact on angling? New Straits Times » Letters (MALAYSIA) Angling is not about killing fish May 15: AS an avid angler in his sixth decade, I find your report " Angler's hook causes pain " (NST, May 4) interesting but deserving of further attention First, I can see no link between the title of your report and the methodology Dr Lynne Sneddon used to determine whether fish can feel pain. What Sneddon had done in her experiment was primarily to expose her subjects to unnatural chemical stress. For example, she found that when the fish were injected with bee venom, they " did not eat food until the effects on the experiments subsided. " However, angling in the real world is a different story. About 10 nautical miles northwest off " Survivor Island " — Pulau Tiga, off the west coast of Sabah, I saw my brother catch a 2kg coral trout which had another shiny hook embedded in its mouth. This shiny hook came from another angler who had, less than 30 seconds before, lost the fish when his line broke off. Once I caught a coral fish which had about 10cm of line covered with green algae sticking out of its mouth and a rusty hook embedded in its gut. No doubt, other anglers have similar experiences to relate. It is therefore evident that only homo sapiens have given the feeling of pain a moral and ethical dimension. Fish are not preoccupied over pain killers. Pain in the animal kingdom is nothing more than a signal that something unusual is happening. Animals, including homo sapiens, kill in order to eat and survive. They do not kill to inflict pain. Second, what the writer of the report, Valerie Elliot, said about George, Lord Byron's apparent contempt on angling also needs further clarification. Byron's description of angling is to be found in the English poet's note to his last, unfinished but greatest work: Don Juan. The narrator of the poem deflates the legendary lover Don Juan to the level of a comic epic hero. The narrator is described by Frederick W. Shilstone, PhD Prof of English, Clemson University, as " a free and self contradictory spirit whose tone changes continually, ranging through the forceful, biting, sentimental, cynical, self mocking, and self assured " . The narrator more than just describes angling as " the cruellest of pretended sports " — the exact words are " the art of angling, the cruellest, the coldest, and the stupidest of pretended sport. " The whale, the sharks, and the tunny fishery have somewhat of the noble and perilous in them; even net fishing, trawling, etc, are more humane and useful. But angling! — No angler can be a good man. " In Jeremy Paxman's anthology Fish, Fishing and the Meaning Of Life, he introduces the chapter on the ethics of fishing with reference to the " assault " of anglers for generations. Paxman also said Byron revealed this true self in his own letters: he was happy to go fishing himself. Paxman therefore recommends that Byron's assault on anglers be taken with a whole bucket of salt! Activists against angling miss an important point — the art is not about catching or killing fish at all. No doubt, the highest and purest form of angling sports was pursued by the gentleman discovered by Paxman in a 1802 piece included in his anthology, and who " had angled for 40 years, and never had a bite yet " at the same spot every day! BENJAMIN H. YONG Kota Kinabalu _______________ Using a handphone prepaid card? Reload your credit online! http://www.msn.com.my/reloadredir/default.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.