When ACRES published photographs of rusty enclosures on Langkawi that were used to house the RWS dolphins and subsequently exposed RWS' lies about the welfare of these dolphins and encouraging animal lovers to appeal directly on RWS fan page on facebook, RWS accused ACRES of cyber attack. "ACRES accused of 'cyber attack'"
That RWS made such a ridiculous accusation underscores their lack of understanding of technology that is not related to the advancement of casino operations is rather obvious.
RWS does not own Facebook.com, but chooses to use the social networking site to advertise their eventss. Animal lovers have chosen to post their views on the same social networking site and inform RWS fans about the past treatment of the wild dolphins, lies and denials about the treatment of these dolphins and how the proposed use of them at RWS will further harm these defenceless creatures. Animal lovers did not launch a denial of service attack on RWS official commercial site. That would have been a cyber attack.
On the Casino Singapore Blog RWS senior vice president for communications Krist Boo claimed "the Marine Life Park is unequivocal in our commitment to meet international standards of care, husbandry and facility for all our marine animals, including our 25 dolphins”.
"The dolphins, which have been under RWS’ care for three years, have acclimated to human care and “we are confident they will continue to thrive”, she added. Of course she brushed aside the fact that 2 dolphins died under RWS' care. The misinformation and irony is not lost on those who have been following the news about the dolphins.
Boo was quoted on the blog:“Our door is open to individuals and animal groups that can contribute constructively to marine conservation."
Really? What about Mexican Senator Jorge Legorreta Ordorica (Chairman, Committee of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries)? He was so aghast by the plans of RWS that he had written to Singapore’s National Development Minister that Mexico's international reputation was adversely affected as a result of its importing 28 Solomon Islands dolphins in 2003: 12 of their dolphins have since died.
Must a similar number of the remaining wild dolphins under RWS' care die before the honourable Minister for National Development takes the necessary action? Perhaps 2 dead dolphins don't matter. After all, dolphins can't cast their votes in the next general election.
But Singapore's international reputation does matter to every Singaporean. Surely it matters to the Singapore government.
Does Singapore want to be judged by the world on its treatment of these wild dolphins and found wanting?
