Q Is animal cruelty being taken seriously enough? There's a saying that if you want to know how a society really is, look at how it treats its inferiors. The recent spate of incidents concerning animal cruelty indicates there is something very wrong with the general population's attitudes towards animals. People don't treat animals with the rights they deserve and they know they can get away with it because the laws on animal cruelty are not enough to deter their sadistic acts. What they get is a slap on the wrist and a menial fine that does not serve as a deterrent. This problem goes beyond the point of civil education. What must be done is immediately increase the fine and jail sentences for animal abusers. We must stop sending the wrong message to these animal abusers. Only by imposing harsher punishments can we hope to prevent more cases like these from happening. Jason Li, Mid-Levels Q Will the lights-out campaign change people's behaviour? Did you turn off the lights for three minutes at 8pm on August 8? I believe most Hong Kong people didn't take any action. When I looked at nearby buildings, I still could see lights sparkling at that moment. I don't think the lights-out campaign got any support from Hongkongers, including Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen. Due to this indifferent response, how likely is it that people will change their behaviour to reduce energy use which produces air pollution? I agree the lights-out campaign is the first step in drawing public attention to energy issues in our daily lives. However, our government didn't understand that and wasn't a good role model for Hong Kong people. Mr Tsang had vowed to do his utmost to combat air pollution. Disappointingly, he hasn't followed his words with action. His reply was that it might hurt the public image of Hong Kong to join the lights-out campaign. I want to ask him: 'Do you know which one hurts the image of Hong Kong deeply? Air pollution or a three-minute lights-out?' Hong Kong people ignore the consequences of air pollution and energy abuse; they still enjoy their luxurious lives; they always switch on TV, air conditioners and lights, whether they stay home or not. Tackling the problem of air pollution and energy abuse is not only the responsibility of environmentalists, but of all Hong Kong people, including our government. We must collaborate and gear up for the battle against air pollution. I believe all Hong Kong people are anxious to have a blue sky. Hongkongers, please take action as soon as possible. Yung Lik-chui, Lei Yue Mun Although the lights-out campaign organiser was satisfied with the outcome, it did not change Hongkongers' inconsiderate behaviour. According to the power suppliers, electricity demand was precisely consistent during the 'blackout'. The campaign promotion was insufficient and ought to be multiplied. Moreover, the sporadic participation in the campaign disappoints me deeply. It reveals that residents consider environment conservation as an insignificant affair. The most important reason for Hong Kong's condition is the lack of awareness of its citizens. 'Keeping Hong Kong environmentally friendly' should be a familiar slogan to everyone. In order to raise awareness of this pressing issue, the government's promotion and education should not only be aimed at students, but also at the whole of society. Furthermore, more and stricter measures should be taken and enforced. Alvin Wan Chun-wah, Aberdeen Q What should be done with Lantau's wild cattle? The arguments regarding feral cattle in Mui Wo really need to move on now to who is responsible for solving the issue and how. While there is an understanding and sympathy regarding the problems faced by local farmers, destroying these animals is not the answer. To do so is not morally acceptable. However, for the benefit of all (cattle and humans), the herd needs to be moved to grazing land well beyond the village boundaries. This seems a simple issue and something the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ought to solve. But bureaucracy dictates that their funds can only be used to destroy, not preserve, the cattle. Odd, given their name: Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department. They can either 'cull' (nice semantics) or impound. Both approaches have the same outcome, as it is unlikely anyone is going to drop by the cow pound to adopt a cow. So after a few months, the cattle will still be destroyed; a slower and more costly way. It makes no sense. The answer is for the AFCD to divert these funds into cattle relocation and a salary for a herdsman to keep the herd out of villages. A government working party is being formed to discuss possible solutions to the problem (yet to meet) and this consultation is laudable, but in the short term, Lantau people are being left to argue among themselves the whys and wherefores of the problem. This issue is causing such frustration among the community that there is a danger (to the cows) that some people may take matters into their own hands. This herd is part of the island's environmental, agricultural and social heritage. We have every reason to keep them, all we need is the right location. They are a source of joy and delight to many and are hugely popular with tourists. Added to Lantau's present green tourism initiative, this 'problem' could be turned into a great opportunity by the tourist authorities. Can someone please step in and take responsibility - humanely? Tania Willis, Mui Wo
