~by: Howard Lee~
If you can’t take the heat, it’s time to call it quits. Or at least, pull the plug.
That seems to be the message that Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) is sending out about itself, when it barred users from posting on its Facebook page, and then accused the Animal Concerns Research & Education Society (ACRES) of “cyber harassment” by inciting its Facebook followers to upload images en masse.
If you have read my position thus far on this issue, you might be surprised by who I think is the party who drew first blood.
In truth, I believe ACRES has started some serious social action and online lobbying against RWS here. And I say this in no disrespect to Louis Ng and his supporters, whom I have a great deal of respect for. Here’s why.
Some history, some context
To date, RWS has been adamant about its position on conservation and animal welfare. When it withdrew its decision to carry on with its whale shark exhibit in May 2009, it cited economic sustainability reasons above environmental ones. The decision was made at the height of much public outcry about animal cruelty and the need to protect endangered species, and ACRES also played a part in that effort among afew other organisations.
The “Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins” campaign started robustly in May 2011 as a continuation of this effort, when it became clear that RWS, while foregoing the whale shark exhibit, is intent on bringing in the dolphins as part of is fulfillment of its Integrated Resorts agreement with the government.
As such, ACRES’s intentions to rally support against RWS’s marine park attractions are not new to RWS. Indeed, “Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins” has the makings of one of the most open, well-thought-out and measured lobby campaigns that I have seen. ACRES had on many occasions requested RWS to clarify its position on the dolphin attraction, attempting to measure its so-called animal conservation and research efforts against international standards, current best practices and beliefs in the matter.
A taste of what’s to come
The effort peaked at the official launch of the campaign, when ACRES released an undercover video of the dolphins held in their training facilities in the Solomon Islands. At that point, the campaign’s momentum swung upwards, with thousands of Facebook users rallying to the cause.
Not resting on this success, ACRES directed a list of 25 questions at RWS, presumably one for each dolphin still in captivity, requesting for unambiguous answers on why RWS intends to pursue its course of action despite clear indicators from international research that, put simply, a dolphin spa is a really bad idea for both the dolphins and human beings.
But RWS continued relentlessly with its dolphin spa project, ignoring the questions from ACRES, or at best continuing to insist that the dolphins are doing well, without providing clear evidence of the mental and physical well-being of the animals in their custody.
The writing was on the wall – indeed, long before it appeared on any online wall that RWS owns. So it should have come as no surprise when supporters of the “Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins” campaign started posting their protests on RWS’s Facebook page, coordinated or otherwise.
It has been ACRES’s clearly stated objective to leverage social media to effect sea change for this particular campaign. To call it a deliberate attack is almost laughable. If anything, it has really been a drawn-out war that is starting to make RWS’s cookie-cut responses sound tiresome.
Two cyber no-no’s
By all counts, I believe that ACRES has done the right thing, and all in accordance with the law. If there is any failing to be found in this incident, it would beon RWS, who I believe committed two “cardinal sins” of online communication.
The first is that it seeks to control opinion online simply by managing its own channels. Its attempts – stating and restating its outdated position even in light of evidence to the contrary, then taking punitive action by first deleting comments and later closing off comments – indicates a blunt belief that it owns its own Facebook page and can basically do anything it wants with it. That might be true, but it cannot hope to own the conversations that users have chosen, nor hope to win over opinions by doing so.
The second is that it believes it can use a standard template and call it “continual engagement”. Doggedly referring back to the same answer to different questions is a sign of desperation, not reason. And if it wishes to enter the online arena, it must understand that reason rules and users are inclined to seek clear and direct answers to their queries. The last straw was to heap the blame on ACRES to account for its own inability to keep pace with the debate raging at its doorstep.
RWS attempted to defend its actions by saying it’s community of Facebook fans have been inconvenienced by ARCES’s actions. But it failed to understand that its fans also include those who persist in questioning its motivations behind the dolphin spa project. We do not create our little enclaves of preferred online communities and call it a day. If we seek to enlarge it, we need to understand that the larger it grows, the more diverse the opinions and demands within. And I say “within”, because it is precisely RWS’s attempt to draw lines betweenACRES’s “them” and an its “us” of compliant followers that possibly alienatesit from the wider community it hopes to reach out to.
The article by TODAY alluded that RWS’s reaction typified “cultural differences” in how “Asian companies tend to be less receptive in managing stakeholders online compared to American or European companies”. That is reallyonly part of the story, if at all.
If anything, its reluctance to communicate openly and address the concerns of protesters – the very people it needs to convince of its intentions – has relegated RWS to nothing but a corporate dinosaur that has little respect for public opinion, insisting dogmatically that it is always right. It is a mockery of how modern online engagement should be done.
RWS’s attempts to manage its little piece of cyberspace typified any corporation that realises that it is outnumbered in favorability and outclassed in argument. You know you have the worst possible plan when you fail to see it coming, do not prepare a proper response, believe that you can spin your way out of it, and futilely seek to control an obviously open environment. The actual stupidity is in following through with it.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Kara-u-ok
There is a very big difference between killing animals for food and torturing them for a laugh. I am surprised you cannot see this difference? As long as animals killed for food are killed in a humane way with minimal suffering in a sustainable fashion with no waste, that is fine. At least it is for food and survival. Keeping dolphins for a laugh is not for survival and there are many other ways to entertain oneself. No need to resort to animals.
Why do you women keep thinking that RWS is doing the dolphin show for money? It is obvious that the dolphin show is not profitable. What is really profitable is the Casino! That is why you women are barking up the wrong tree. It is the Casino that is really evil. Maybe love is blind. You women have fallen in love with the dolphins and have become blind to everything else.
There is a very big difference between killing animals for food and torturing them for a laugh. I am surprised you cannot see this difference?
——————————
What’s the big difference? To you, perhaps. But to the animal whether it is killed humanely for your own survival or for your own amusement, there is really no difference. Both are victims to your selfish benefits. I will not be surprised if you are not able to introspect deeper to what I am saying.
To Bronzechua
The dolphins are to draw to crowd. All the other facilities offer by RWS are the same – draw crowd. The link is obvious – part of it will filter into the casino. It is the same for casinos all over the world – all the other fringe events main purpose is to get people in lah ! Casinos are not here to do charity or promote education or conservation. You are right, they are here to make money. So whatever lame excuses they try to fool the public with – only fools will believe them.
@ Georgia Tong,
Good argument, Georgia. Way to go…
@CCDV: The 27 dolphins captured for RWS almost certainly constituted the entire family pod. So no, their family members are not somewhere out there. Happiness is a human construct. You are assuming dolphins (and other non-human animals) experience the same emotions as us. This is anthropomorphism, and not scientifically established.
@all the Ladies: Men are rational and are not driven by emotion. This campaign exploits emotions and women fall easily for it. Like I said, terming the RWS dolphins the “World’s Saddest” is nothing but a cheap stunt to stir up negative feelings.
I do not work for RWS, nor do I have benefit from them in any way. I am merely speaking up against irrationality and futility.
It is heartening to see human compassion for animals. But this campaign has become too myopic – focusing on 25 dolphins and denying resources and attention to larger causes.
@Georgia: Will RWS make money from the dolphins? Probably. But where will the money go?
If even a small percentage of the profits is channeled to in-situ conservation projects, isn’t that a good thing?
You haven’t even seen the types of education programmes RWS will offer, yet you’ve already made judgment that it will not do anything.
ACRES is a good organization with good intention and well beings of animals. For this dolphin case, i think RWS should be more transparent with the treatment of the animals. They should provide as big as possible a pool for them and the programs must be tailored with the well being of these animals as a top priority. Work together to ensure that the animals are treated with best care possible and a open policy from RWS will allow public to be more acceptance to this issue. Allow the NGOs access to the animals regularly. This world is not perfect, we need to work together, to make their lives as good as possible and heads towards real meaning program geared towards education of the public. Not just making money out of these poor creatures. I think RWS can do more, and offer to work with the NGOs with open arms. The staff in RWS managing this project must be real animal lovers not some money , please the boss type of management staff, to start with.
RWS states that “no calves or lactating mothers were among our dolphins that were humanely and sustainably collected”
May I ask if the 27 dolphins really constituted the entire family pod? Wasn’t able to find an exact reliable evident on the net.
@ The voice of reason
I believe that this source is a reliable one to declare that dolphins are the 2nd most intelligent creature after human.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6973994.ece
to the voice of reason – what sort of education is RWS imparting to the public and our youngs ? Capturing wild dolphins and subjecting them to life long confinement to entertain us. In the process, some died and it is vicious cycle as the existing batch will need to be replace at some time. Cruelty and selfishness – this is RWS type of education for the public.
Conservation – you must be kidding. RWS is speeding up their termination!
If ACRES is indeed so noble, they should petition all countires to abolish zoos since as all these animals are kept in captivity ????
@ClearMonded – Animals in zoo can survive captivity. However, it does not mean animals should be kept in captivity. Zoo facilities & welfare for the animals can be improvised. But dolphins in captivity will lead to higher death rate. All animals will have stress but dolphins have incredible sensitive hearing & sonar. Keeping them in tanks, their sonar will only keep bouncing back. As hightlighted by Elisabelle Aruldoss in her article “Dolphins and captivity don’t mix”, dolphins unable to partake in their natural behaviour show behaviours caused by psychological stress – show aggression to other dolphins, knocking their head against the wall or suicide by not taking the next breath. These are a few common examples. It is just a matter of time when they decide it is enough for them. There are many marine parks in other countries and the cases are always similar.
It is welfare and rights we are talking about, be it animals or human being. If we don’t stand up for them in our own country, how can we help those in other countries.
Why don’t ACRES petition that
1) all restaurants stop serving sharksfins
2) banned zoos from keeping animals and sunjecting animals to perform e.g in the Singapore zoos
3) Stop the operation of the Bird Park since birds are free ranging and flying animals that cannot be enclosed
4) stop bird-lovers from keeping birds in cages ( same reason as 3)
5) stop people from keeping fishes in small fish tanks
and many more trivial stuffs that is of no consequence
e.t.c
Enough said.
@Righteous — trivial stuffs that is of no consequence
You have absolutely no idea. Some animals cant be kept in captivity, they’d rather die. Don’t you get it?
While they are unable to converse in a language known by us, they are smart and beautiful creatures. Nothing less delicate as we are.