The case of Chan Yat-biu and his pet monkey Kam Ying highlights how easy it is to turn considered debates about the conservation of wildlife into emotive pleas for individual cases. It also shows how the media often trivialise complex conservation issues.
The Chinese media, generally, gave sensationalised coverage of the case. Mr Chan, we were told, had been harshly treated by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD). The feelings of an old man had been swept aside by thoughtless officialdom. Nowhere was the welfare of this young female rhesus macaque considered. Yet Kam Ying was traded as a wildlife pet, taken from her natural surroundings and fellows; she had been in Mr Chan's possession for a lengthy period; and during that time Kam Ying's tail had been cut off.
Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden wrote a factual, balanced letter (South China Morning Post, June 15). It clarified that the AFCD was enforcing an essential ordinance, one specifically intended to decrease the trade in regional wildlife, where profits and cruelty go hand-in-hand.
As the letter observed: 'Stories that involve humans and their pets are often emotive and it is easy to lose sight of the 'real issues' in these cases.' In his Sunday Morning Post column on July 2, Tim Hamlett greatly oversimplified the issues. By implication, he belittled the conservation work of the AFCD and presented AFCD's officials as heartless and ignorant.
This is far from the truth. (In fact, through the media, the AFCD has said Mr Chan can visit Kam Ying if he wishes). Mr Hamlett's far-fetched comparison of macaques with racehorses could hardly assist people in forming a considered view.
As the SAR Government, and the AFCD, work towards expanding and improving conservation of Hong Kong's natural resources (and the region's species), the community needs informed, balanced and fair environmental comment in the media.
