(HK) Government unconcerned with humane animal welfare policies

[Guest guest]

South China Morning Post

2008-09-01

 

 

Government unconcerned with humane animal welfare policies

 

 

I am writing to add to Jethro Medcalf's excellent letter ( " Simple

solution can put a stop to the killing of innocent animals " , August 23).

 

I concur with everything he said. His letter was a damning overview of

the shortcomings of the Hong Kong government's animal welfare policies

or rather, the lack of them. I know first-hand from individuals of

animal welfare groups and other serious campaigners who have been

working tirelessly for the past 15 years to have effective humane animal

welfare legislation passed through Legco, but are consistently thwarted

by the government's lack of interest, short-sightedness, and worse,

lobbying from the extensive and profit-oriented pet industry.

 

The treatment of animals is indeed the measure of a decent society and

although this is sadly lacking in Hong Kong, awareness is steadily

improving among the general public, but not seemingly within the

government's ranks. As Mr Medcalf rightly points out, animal welfare

campaigners do indeed have the firm support of district councillors

city-wide, who in addition to rejecting the senseless waste of

taxpayers' money, also see the futility and inane cruelty of destroying

perfectly healthy, homeable animals that would bring great pleasure to

so many Hong Kong people.

 

If new legislation was finally passed in Hong Kong, as it should have

been years ago, then many improvements would be made: the rampant and

often illegal pet trade would be controlled (in time), homes for

abandoned animals would be found more easily and with a proper,

stringent licensing system, companion animals would be vaccinated, and

desexed thereby vastly reducing the number of animals that are currently

being destroyed. With these effective measures in place the lunacy of

the current situation would be overturned.

 

To many, the Hong Kong government looks to be unaccountable, lacking in

transparency and apparently only seems inclined to pass legislation that

amounts to window dressing with no apparent interest in actually getting

the job done. Eleven years post-handover, when and how is this ever

going to improve?

 

L. Eastwell, Lamma