liang dingzi, Today Online 5 Jun 08;
AS someone who abhors any form of cruelty to animals, whether inflicted out of perversion or for commercial purposes, I applaud Resorts World at Sentosa (RWS) for its decision to keep sharks’ fin off its menu when it opens in 2010. I hope other restaurants will soon follow suit.
I find the commitment, however, somewhat half-hearted and disconcerting when it was revealed that high rollers at the resort may continue to feast on the Chinese delicacy. This is clearly a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, negating the good that would have been otherwise achieved.
Worse, it suggests that compassion is a tradeable commodity — that wealth buys the right to be above the civilised norm that is being promoted. It does not matter that the consumption by high rollers will be confined to private rooms.
However surreptitious, it does not disguise the fact that some sharks had their flippers chopped off before they were thrown back into the sea to die an agonizing death.
Surely, it would be an insult to suggest that high rollers, many of whom are said to be businessmen and perhaps leaders in their fields, are less compassionate than the plebians of the casino community.
Besides, this is an academic proposition. The dish is expensive and, therefore, less affordable for those whose pockets are not as deep.
The outcry to ban sharks’ fins is not new. Many premium airlines — including Singapore Airlines — which used to serve the delicacy in its first class cabins have long ceased the practice.
These airlines have shown that there are alternatives that are just as good, and they have not lost their customers because the dish is absent from their in-flight menus.
By the same argument, surely it is not the sharks’ fin that will attract the high rollers to the integrated resort.
RWS’s launch of a marine conservation fund is laudable, so too is its openness to work in consultation with wildlife welfare groups.
However, it is ironical, if not somewhat hypocritical, that while fronting such efforts as a socially-responsible corporation, they continue to support the slaughtering of sharks for their fins just because they can never say no to a high roller.
Social responsibility includes practising what one preaches. While RWS has said it will “educate and persuade” its high-heeled patrons, it is a pity that many more sharks will continue to be subject to such senseless killing.
If it is a matter of principle, why wait till then, especially when it is not even known when? You do not buy time to halt an undesirable activity.
Mahatma Gandhi once said: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.”
Sharks may not be the best-loved animals in the world, but there is no reason to treat them barbarously. They may not be harvested by us, but we do not have to be accomplices in crime.
RWS has taken what may be viewed as the first step, which is not something to be pooh-poohed. I only wish it was just a one and only step, without exception.
