Twelve monkeys at Hong Kong’s Zoological and Botanical Gardens have now died, with the deaths of 11 confirmed to have been the result of melioidosis, a bacterial infection likely stemming from contaminated soil disturbed during digging work in the gardens earlier this month.

A conservation department official said the bacteria is common in Asia, with similar incidents in other zoos. A health officer assured the public the incident is “an isolated infection that happened in an individual zoo. We believe it will have a small impact on residents and people should not be overly worried.”

So officially the case is closed. But something crucial seems to be missing from the government’s account: the root cause of this tragedy lies in the cruel captivity of animals in zoos.

Addressing this blind spot forces us to ask: do we still need zoos? How does the Hong Kong government justify keeping animals in captivity? And more importantly, how does it perceive the lives of these animals?

The history of modern zoos can be traced back to the 19th century, when they were created for scientific study, “rational” recreation, and education. Complicit with colonialism, zoos in the West also served to demonstrate imperial power by showcasing exotic animals from the colonies.

As critic Randy Malamud argues, zoos are symptomatic of imperialism, sadism, and voyeurism. The cruel captivity of animals is akin to enslavement, though the subjugation is not justified by race but by the human-animal distinction.

Amid rising concern over environmental degradation since the Second World War, many zoos have positioned themselves at the frontier of conservation by housing, studying, and breeding endangered species, as well as attracting funds for habitat protection through ticket sales or public donations.

However, as research has shown, the conservation efforts of zoos are weak. Few zoo-bred animals are ever released into their natural habitats, and zoos have largely failed to restore biodiversity in nature.

In fact, for Hong Kong conservation is hardly the goal. Government-run zoos, such as the botanical gardens, imprison animals mainly for public entertainment rather than research or eventual release. Moreover, because the zoo is free of charge, it does not generate funds for conservation – just like other zoos including the Edward Youde Aviary in Hong Kong Park and the reptile house in Tuen Mun Park.

Another criticism faced by modern zoos concerns animal ethics: that the imprisonment of animals fundamentally violates their rights and ignores their nature and preferences.

For instance, solitary animals like giant pandas are often forced to share enclosures with others to satisfy the public’s desire to see companionship. Additionally, animals are usually confined to spaces much smaller than their natural habitats. Numerous exposés have shown that animals in captivity frequently show signs of psychological distress, with some even resorting to self-harm or suicide.

Saskia Sinha from the Hong Kong Animal Law and Protection Organisation has exposed how the caged animals at the Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens lack respite from weather conditions, moments of privacy, and conditions for enrichment such as the fulfilment of wonder – all of which are vital aspects of captive animal welfare.

In response to ethical concerns, many zoos have touted their educational value, just as the botanical gardens does on its website. However, animals in captivity demonstrate very different behaviour from those in the wild. As philosopher John Berger observed, seeing animals in a zoo is like looking at “an image out of focus.”

Stripping away these politically correct justifications, Berger argues that zoos offer little more than “realistic animal toys.” The Hong Kong government is not subtle about this view by claiming the gardens as a “popular tourist attraction.” This claim is ethically indefensible – how can we justify the captivity of sentient beings for human entertainment?

Central to Berger’s philosophical inquiry is not only the reason animals are kept in captivity but also why society allows it. One of the answers he offers pertains to the objectification of animals amid capitalism which has led to the “reduction of animals.” Animals, once seen as sentient and mortal beings that resemble humans, have been rendered inferior and exploitable. 

Because zoos to him symbolise the moral failure of humanity, Berger further draws parallels between them and other institutions that epitomise the marginalisation and reduction of human lives, including ghettos and concentration camps.

His claim is pertinent in exposing the human-centric narrative in the Hong Kong government’s response to the deaths of the monkeys. These animals are so objectified that their intrinsic value is entirely invisible. They are here to serve humans, and their deaths are acceptable, common and normal as long as they do not impact human beings.

The monkeys did not die solely from an infection. They died because of humans’ desire for entertainment and our disregard for the lives of other sentient beings. The Hong Kong government must stop acquiring more animals and ensure the welfare of those already in captivity by preventing harm and addressing their needs, such as health, socialisation, and play.

In the long term, zoos, together with the cruel enslavement of animals, must come to an end.

Main Source: HKFP

Pit Hok Yau is a researcher for The Hong Kong Animal Law and Protection Organisation and a PhD student in Asian Studies at The University of British Columbia