tim's experiment

Well it is nice to know that whales are welcome in Hong Kong, but you have to hope that the one who has been hanging around Sai Kung for the past week has not been reading the resulting media coverage, which may well have left him a bit confused.

First on the scene was a “team from Ocean Park” who, according to the Standard were “taking samples for DNA analysis”, apparently to determine what kind of whale we were entertaining. The expert consensus seems to be that the whale, which is quite small as whales go, is a Bryde’s Whale.

This kind of whale is named after a Mr Johan Bryde, who pronounced his name Brooder; he was Norwegian. His claim to fame is that he established the first modern whaling (which I presume means whale-killing) station in South Africa while working as his country’s consul there.

Great. So the whale is named after a whale killer. Any anxiety the whale may feel on this point will be increased when he gets the word on Ocean Park. The park, according to the “Under the Sea” gossip network, is a place where fish are kept in tanks and other animals are kept in enclosures which we must not call cages because they don’t have bars, but … if you’re not allowed to leave it’s a prison.

I understand that the fish performances in Ocean Park these days put a lot of emphasis on conservation, which is no doubt an improvement on the days when it was just a sort of wet circus. On the other hand the fish and animals there are hardly in a natural environment so spokesmen for the park urging people not to subject the whale to “stress” could be considered to have a rather selective approach to the welfare of whales and other creatures.

Then we had a protective performance from the Agriculture and Fisheries Department. Fisheries, the whale will perhaps observe, is a euphemism for dragging fish out of the sea in industrial quantities so that they can be killed and eaten. So if I were the whale I would be a bit suspicious.

What perhaps escaped the whale’s attention – they are simple creatures – was the AFD’s swift shift to law enforcement mode.

A spokesman was quick on the trigger: irresponsible whale watching “might constitute intentional disturbance of protected wildlife, and offenders, if convicted, may face a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment and a fine of $100,000.”

As this is a department which proposes to impose similar penalties on people feeding wild birds our whale may feel that the department’s attitudes to nature and its inhabitants are a bit incoherent.

What depressed me was the instant resort to legal threats. In a humane and coherent society people will generally do what they are told is the right thing. The law is a reminder and a back stop. Usually people behave themselves because they were brought up properly and they wish to be thought well of by their fellow-citizens. If told not to pester a whale most of us will take the hint.

A government which reaches for the law at the first sign of inconvenience to itself, or visiting cetaceans, betrays a lack of confidence in its relationship with its own citizens. Do they not trust us? Do they think we don’t trust them? Inevitably it also leads to misunderstandings.

Staff from the AFD appeared on the Sai Kung promenade distributing leaflets which reminded boat owners, we were told, that the rules applying to dolphin-watching also applied to whale-watching. Boats should keep their distance, motor gently, not appear in crowds. This was a sensible approach. But the Department’s earlier threats had already taken their toll and some boat owners thought whale-watching trips had now become illegal.

This was not the case. But the way the rule of law works in Hong Kong these days nobody expects the law to be clear any more. If the government wants you to be guilty you will rot on remand until you agree with it. Why take chances?

Well no doubt the whale will welcome a bit of peace and quiet. He, or she, is apparently recovering – or so we hope – from an injury, probably caused by a propeller. We shall see.

Whether Hong Kong will recover from the injuries inflicted on its self-confidence and international reputation by clumsy legal “reforms” also remains to be seen.