The Underwater World Singapore (UWS) was established with the aim of marine conservation and education but the new revelation casts doubts on its sincerity in conserving the marine environment.

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) has said that UWS can keep the dolphins despite Singapore being a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites). Cites is an international accord to ensure that trade does not threaten wildlife with extinction.

The World Conservation Union has stated that fishermen are catching pink dolphins in Thailand for marine parks and that there are not many left in the wild.

In a similar case, four gorillas were transferred from Ibadan Zoo, Nigeria, to Taiping Zoo, Malaysia. As with the pink dolphins, these gorillas had been caught in the wild but were listed as captive-bred on the permits. Malaysia, which is also a signatory to Cites, has since confiscated the gorillas, even though they were also imported for education and conservation.

If indeed UWS is allowed to import wild endangered species, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that it does not get more wild pink dolphins from Thailand, pushing this species even closer to extinction?

JAGDISH RAMAKRISHAN

WHEN shown evidence that some of the pink dolphins had been caught in the wild and not bred in captivity, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority put it down to an 'administrative error'.

I find the logic of its stand to be somewhat puzzling. If an illegal act had been committed, it should not be condoned, with the status quo allowed to continue, by saying that it is still legal for UWS to keep the dolphins for educational and breeding purposes or that the mistake was due to a clerical error.

LEONG SZE HIAN