Joint statement on Tim Hamlett's Misleading Article on Conservation Law.

Hong Kong Free Press’s columnist Tim Hamlett has published an article titled “Hong Kong’s whale met a sad end, but do we really need a new law?” on 6 August 2023. The author has argued that it is unnecessary for the government to implement new legislation that protects whales in Hong Kong, claiming “it is a waste of time and effort to legislate for things which are seriously unlikely to come up.”

We wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. Hamlett, whose stance obviously anchors on some very flawed arguments. Worse still, his misleading and irresponsible piece has inevitably jeopardized the recent lobbying efforts by different conservation NGOs who have asked for an evaluation of existing policies and new legislation on marine animals. 

We stand firmly that it is necessary to have new laws that (1) expand the coverage and criminalise violations of the current dolphin-watching guidelines and (2) allow the authorities to set up short-term restrictive zones for conservation. 

Mr. Hamlett’s first idea is that the government should make “reforms” instead of rushing to new legislation on whales, and the more viable step is to include the whales in the “Code of Conduct for Dolphin Watching Activities”. However, the Code has limited deterrent effect since it is not legally binding and violations would not be prosecuted. In this light, it is not enough to just “reform” the Code but to “legislate” and criminalize the violations of the Code, after extending its coverage to whales and other marine animals. 

In fact, according to the government, the new legislation, which Mr. Hamlett seems to have targeted, shall give authorities more “flexibility to respond to handle similar situations,” namely the ability to set up restrictive areas near the animal. Many NGOs had proposed the measure since the whale’s sighting, but the government refused to implement it. When reflecting on the tragedy, the Secretary for Environment and Ecology Tse Chin-wan acknowledged that there were “limitations in the immediate power given by the laws” to handle the situation. One possible improvement in handling similar situations in the future is to “set up a restricted area around whales,” which, unlike countries such as Canada, no current law gives the local authorities the power to do so. 

Another fallacious argument from Mr. Hamlett is that it is not logical to think of whale-watching boats as the culprits in killing the whale. The statement is problematic in two senses: First, the concerns over the whale-watching boats are sound; Second, whale-watching operators are not the only alleged culprits of the incident.

Concerning whether it is illogical to think that whale-watching boats are the culprits of the death of the animal, historical precedence shows that whale-watching vessels did injure whales, and some deaths of Chinese white dolphins in Hong Kong have been suspected as a result of strikes by dolphin-watching boats. While mostly unintentional, these examples validate people’s concerns over whale-watching operators harming the mammal.

In addition, unlike what Mr. Hamlett has claimed, whale-watching boats are not the only targets of condemnation. Other marine traffic has also been suspected of leading to the menace. For example, a media report recorded that many fishing boats had appeared in the Sai Kung water the night before the whale was found dead. In light of this, it is essential to have a new law that allows the government to set up a restrictive area to prevent vessel collision.

Furthermore, equally misleading is Mr. Hamlett’s idea that implementing new laws on whales is a waste of time and energy because whales are unlikely to come to Hong Kong. He cited his “memory” that the recent incident is the first story of an immigrant whale in the last 40 years.

Large whales are undoubtedly occasional visitors, but the mammals did and will likely come to Hong Kong. For instance, a sperm whale was washed up in Sai Kung in 2003, and in 2009 a humpback whale cruised in southern Hong Kong waters. In addition, different research shows that the distribution, habitat, and migration of whales have been significantly altered due to climate change. We certainly do not know whether more whales and other cetaceans will be coming to our waters, but we should be prepared to ensure their safety if they do. 

This leads us to another refutation: the new legislation should aim to fill the legal gaps concerning not only whales but also other marine animals. The whale incident is symptomatic of the current deficiencies in law. Hong Kong waters are rich in biodiversity, and it contains many vulnerable species, including Chinese white dolphin, Indo-Pacific finless porpoise, Chinese horseshoe crab, yellow seahorse, green turtles, to name just a few. The new laws should be able to make provisions for all possible future conservation. 

Nonetheless, if we hypothetically agree that new laws should only be formed if “enough” whales frequent Hong Kong, how many visiting whales are “enough” to make the legislation legitimate? A dozen, a hundred, a thousand, or a million yearly? Just like humans, whales are sentient beings. Protecting animals’ welfare is not a quantifiable issue. It is a choice between right and wrong, and it is morally wrong not to do so.

To do Mr. Hamlett justice, his article intends to shed light on how the local government has often thoughtlessly suggested legislation to remedy social problems. But such critique does not apply to the much demanded and needed change in marine animal policy. In our opinion, Mr. Hamlett’s article does nothing to make his point, but irresponsibly misleads readers to think that the new legislation is not essential, which is clearly not the case. 

As a man of influence, we regret and are deeply disappointed by Mr. Hamlett’s misleading article. We hereby urge Mr. Hamlett’ to apologize for his irresponsible arguments and retrieve the article, which is full of misinformation.

 For more information, please contact Pit Hok Yau (email: timophypit@gmail.com) from the Hong Kong Animal Law and Protection Organisation.

Download Statement HERE

Hong Kong Animal Law and Protection Organisation & 

Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society