We reproduce here in full the letter by ACRES Executive Director Louis Ng to Resorts World Sentosa’s CEO Tan Hee Teck, to directly address the questions raised in this letter, point by point and in detail.

27 June 2011

Mr. Tan Hee Teck
CEO
Resorts World Sentosa (RWS)

Dear Mr. Tan,

We understand that it was mentioned in the media that you did not receive the letter from Ric O’ Barry. To ensure that you receive this letter, we have sent it to email addresses listed on the RWS website and also to your RWS staff members. We ask that they help to forward this letter to you and ensure that you receive this.

We hope that you will directly address the questions raised in this letter, point by point and in detail. The 650,000 people who have signed the petition urging you to please let the dolphins go, need to understand your position on this important issue.

1. Does RWS sincerely and truly believe that to teach its visitors about dolphin protection, the best way is to capture and remove dolphins from their natural habitat, subject them to stressful transportation, let them watch two of their pod mates die, subject them to further stressful transportation, subject them to training and getting them used to humans, feed them a diet they are not used to, house them in an artificial environment and then keep them captive for the rest of their lives?

2. Is RWS aware of the letter from Mexican Senator Jorge Ordorica (Chairman, Committee of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries), who was so dismayed at the plans of RWS that he wrote to Singapore’s National Development Minister about it? Senator Jorge wrote that Mexico’s international reputation was dented as a result of its importing 28 Solomon Islands dolphins in 2003. At least 12 of the dolphins have since died. “Mexico’s experience with this single import led to our government imposing an outright ban on importation and exportation of live cetaceans for entertainment purposes and this ban is still in place,” the Mexican Senator said. He urged Singapore to consider Mexico’s experience and ‘the disturbing mortality’ of the animals when evaluating applications for the permits to import such dolphins.

3. Is RWS aware that United Parcel Service (UPS), whom you paid to transport the first shipment of RWS dolphins from the Solomon Islands to the Philippines, said it would stop moving this kind of cargo, as the practice violated its environmental principles? If UPS can understand that this is wrong, shouldn’t RWS be able to understand as well?

4. Is RWS aware that Chris Porter, who sold the wild-caught dolphins to RWS, called for RWS to “review its motivation for using these animals as a tourist draw”? Porter was concerned that “RWS is using the animals primarily to make money while telling the public that its aim is to educate the public on marine conservation”.

5. Is RWS aware of the European Association for Aquatic Mammals Standards for Establishments Housing Bottlenose Dolphins? If RWS is aware of these guidelines, why did it not follow them?

6. Why did RWS house the dolphins in a rusty enclosure in Langkawi and deny this initially?

7. Was the dolphin enclosure in Langkawi really 20 metres by 20 metres as RWS stated? Does RWS realise that ACRES has photos of the enclosure during its construction?

8. Since RWS is using the United States as an example, is RWS aware that in the late 1980s, facilities in the United States implemented a voluntary moratorium on collection of bottlenose dolphins from the wild, and this remains in place? Why is RWS not following this progressive and voluntary decision?

9. If dolphins can thrive in facilities and have also been bred successfully in facilities, why then did RWS need to acquire wild-caught dolphins? Please note that the question here is not whether catching dolphins from the wild is legal and forgetting the moral issues involved, but specifically why did RWS not acquire captive-bred dolphins?

10. Does RWS realise that dolphins, like us, are sentient beings, and when considering whether to snatch them from the wild, it is not only about whether the dolphins are endangered, but more importantly whether it is morally right to take away their freedom?

11. In your blog post, you did not answer the question you posed “Why did the MLP source its dolphins from the wild instead of from captive sources?” Did RWS purchase wild-caught dolphins because they are cheaper than captive bred ones?

12. RWS has stated that the bottlenose dolphins are not classified as endangered nor are they threatened with extinction. Why then is it so important for RWS to breed them in captivity?

13. Can RWS let the public know which airline will be transporting the dolphins to Singapore if they do come?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,
Louis Ng (MSc)
Executive Director
ACRES (Animal Concerns Research and Education Society)
www.acres.org.sg

91 Jalan Lekar
Singapore 698917
(O): +65 6892 9821
(F): +65 6892 9721

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Malaysia and Singapore agreed to immediately and simultaneously back down on airspace issue to make way for negotiations

Malaysia has agreed to simultaneously and immediately suspend permanent restricted area over…

TOC Ltd: Registration forms submitted to MDA, lingering problems

MEDIA RELEASE The Opinion Collaborative Ltd (TOC Ltd) has submitted its registration…

More reporting and accounting please

By Bertha Henson – Whenever I read about an agency spending money…

虚惊一场 樟宜机场出现无人看管行李

樟宜机场的出境大厅出现无人看管的行李,惊动机场保安将现场封锁,警方也到现场展开调查,逾一小时后确定只是虚惊一场。 有关事件于昨晚(8月6日)10时43分左右,在樟宜机场第一搭客大厦出境大厅发生。 警方受询时证实上述事故,并指当局和机场保安共同封锁了周围区域超过一个小时多,然后确认有关的背包内并没有任何可疑之处,就将现场解封了。 据一名不愿具名的《联合早报》读者指出,事发时他身在当场,获知有关事故是因为手推车附近发现一个无人看管的背包。 他指出,保安人员较后拉起封锁线,并且促请附近的人们离开现场。 从事零售业的胡先生也表示,踏入出境大厅时,他见保安人员和警员将手推车周围区域封锁了。 当局也表示为了顾客们的安全,要求周围人群远离现场。 据他提供的照片中,只见现场至少有三名机场紧急服务团队人员,而且他们都在手推车附近检查某些物品。