Unfair to blame MTR for dog's death
Mike Rowse says given the facts, rail officers made a brave and correct call
I love dogs so much that I have always refused to have one in Hong Kong. That may seem paradoxical, but I can explain.
A man's dog is his truest friend. The pair form a bond that grows only stronger over time. They get to read each other's moods so perfectly that the mere intake of breath by the human as he gets to his feet in the evening tells the creature that it is time for a walk.
And by walk I mean proper exercise together with the owner, not a session spent crouching by the domestic helper's feet while she chats with friends just out of sight of the apartment.
Man and dog have responsibilities towards each other. The man must make sure the dog is fed and watered and gets lots of exercise. The dog's job is to be a source of unquestioning support and love.
The reason I won't have a dog in Hong Kong is that I know I do not have enough time to fulfil my share of the bargain.
All this is by way of introduction to discussion of the recent episode where a stray dog wandered onto the rail tracks and, after a brief attempt to lure him to safety failed, was killed by a passing train.
The incident was followed by an outpouring in social media of criticism of the MTR staff who had resumed rail services. The overwhelming view of the commentators - presumably those not stuck on unmoving trains - was that the company should have waited much longer than the reported six minutes before resuming normal transport services. They should have sent for staff of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department to catch the animal and take it to a shelter.