Your sentimental article about Shenzhen's dolphin-assisted therapy programme (Hope Floats, Post Magazine, December 17) is deeply disturbing, not to mention irresponsible, especially at a time when Ocean Park is talking of providing more captive animals for our 'entertainment'.
Keeping dolphins captive is a very controversial issue in general, and using them for therapy programmes makes it even more contentious. It is not difficult to find solid arguments against these practices - the Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society website explains the well-known arguments against this. Its statement as to why swim-with-the-dolphin (SWTD) programmes are not advisable is further clarified by many parties, such as the Humane Society of the US' report on marine mammals in captivity: 'SWTD programmes do not educate the public, they exploit both dolphins and people.' The evidence in favour of pet-assisted therapy far outweighs the anecdotal and unscientific evidence offered by SWTD programmes - activities such as Animals Asia's Dr Dog programme have far more value than some wholly misguided notion that dolphins in captivity are happy to help humans.
Dolphins are beautiful, intelligent creatures worthy of our respect - they are also predators who have been known (more often than is reported) to bite and bruise SWTD participants.
Instead of wondering what they can do for us, we should ask what we, destroyers of their habitat, can do for them. We believe SWTD should be prohibited.
JANET WALKER, Hong Kong Dolphinwatch
Rich pay little tax
The goods and services tax proposal is beaten, government income is higher than its expenses, yet Financial Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen keeps whining that we need a broader tax base. Instead of looking at the low-income group, which does not pay or pays very little tax, perhaps we should focus on the top-income group, which does not pay or pays very little tax.