IT APPEARS that Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) has severely
underestimated the demands of its bid proposal for the Marine Life
Park ("Langkawi dolphin pens 'appalling'"; Jan 14).
It started with a reversal on its ability to house a whale
shark. Then despite its assurances, two dolphins died.
It seems there are no contingency or fail-safe plans in place
should things go awry.
The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) reviewed and arbitrated over
the decision to award the contract to RWS. It, therefore, has an
extended responsibility in this issue which goes beyond simply
stressing that RWS must comply with the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) and
Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regulations.
On commercial grounds, the current situation is grossly unfair
to the other international bidders who were not selected but
submitted proposals they could have fulfilled.
Insisting on accountability will serve to deter future project
bidders from submitting inflated proposals solely designed to win
the bid, and which they may be little confident of completing.
What recourse do winning bidders have, should they encounter
insurmountable difficulties, which is highly possible with these
complex projects?
In the case of RWS, the dolphins are now bearing the brutal cost
of the project's steep learning curve. We should seriously consider
scrapping this contentious project to focus on other aspects of
marine welfare instead.
Can STB and RWS clarify these queries to justify the claims of
walking the talk on marine conservation.
Roger Chow
