Letter from Marie Hogan (Ms), Straits Times Forum 10 Jun 08;
ANIMAL rights group Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) recently criticised Singapore Airlines for using the image of a rodeo in one of its advertisements.
But the sometimes cruel exploitation of animals for commercial and entertainment value is nothing new. Note the following:
1. A full page ad by SilkAir showing two men in a river forcing open the mouth of a crocodile - the animal was probably tame and used to being manhandled; nonetheless, the message sent out was wrong.
2. Prudential Insurance's use of the matador to symbolise its strengths.
3. HSBC's particularly cruel one of a live fish being dragged across gravel then stepped on by a bear and eaten (did Peta get this one and if they did, was there anything done about it?)
4. An episode on a popular entertainment programme which showed a fish sliced, garnished and served up live, while the host giggled and made inane remarks.
5. An episode on a cooking show on cable TV that showed a live octopus thrown into a pot of boiling soup and the host making insensitive remarks as the creature flayed about.
Who is at fault for perpetuating these cruelties? Companies, public relations firms or consumers?
Clearly, all.
It does not take much to curtail this perpetuation. Companies have influence, so they need to take more responsibility with their advertising content.
Consumers need to be more discerning about what they watch. And if a programme is clearly offensive, say something about it.
If consumers demand better treatment for animals, all related and even non-related services will have to clean up their act.
But until that happens, associations like Peta, even if at times overzealous, will be vital to monitoring the welfare of animals.
