From ‘ You’re what you eat’, 5 Feb 2012, article by Sumiko Tan, Lifestyle, Sunday Times.
…Growing up, I had shark’s fin soup coming out of my ears. At any one time, we’d have pots of it in the fridge where it would have turned into jelly and had to be heated up…While I didn’t dislike the dish – the fins are tasteless but the soup is flavourful – I developed something of a phobia for it.
Those days, no one batted an eyelid about eating shark’s fin soup. The Chinese have for centuries revered shark’s fin as a delicacy and it was served as a treat – a symbol of respect, honour and prosperity. Today, no one can escape the bad press surrounding it.
…I would never order a bowl of shark’s fin soup for myself…But if I am served a bowl of shark’s fin – like at my recent Chinese New Year’s Eve reunion dinner – I will take it.
I’ll take it because it is there. I’ll take it because the soup is tasty. I’ll take it because it will be a sheer waste of money to leave it untouched to be then thrown away. Mostly, though, I’ll take it because it will be rude to my host if I don’t.
…In my world view, animals – unless they have been domesticated – were created to be killed by humans for food. And if you’ve watched documentaries, you’ll know animals in the wild are vicious. They rip apart and kill each other all the time, whether for food or to protect themselves or their young. It’s all part of nature and the cycle of life, so why are some people so hung up about what animals might be ‘feeling’?
(See more of her article under Comments below)
Perhaps at some point in history sharks were as abundant as ikan bilis, that Sumiko could afford to ‘get sick’ of shark’s fin soup, but from my own experience encountering unsavoury comments from shark-lovers on a previous post, she’s asking for a brutal slugfest from eco-warriors all over the country.
Here are some nasty remarks from the Twitterverse:
Sumiko Tan – you might want to read a few books on ethical consumption before you excrete what’s passes for an opinion. I am happy to help.
Sumiko Tan the Apex predator
Who cares if you continue to eat sharks’ fins or not Sumiko tan! Waste of newspaper space. Completely skipped her musings n read abt fd.
Sumiko’s argument on the ethics of eating shark’s fin against the backdrop of inevitable cruelty in our domestication of animals for food seems sound, until she brought up the biblical concept of man’s ‘stewardship over the planet’, and how animals were CREATED to be killed for food. If animals were created solely for food, you would have headless, fat unfeathered birds without beaks, claws or wings to fend off attacks from hungry homo sapiens. You would have suckling pigs sprouting out of the ground like flowers in the spring, and crabs would be just be a couple of overgrown, non-functional pincers. Heck, you would just need to set up a hotpot by a river bank and fish would just leap happily into it.
If sharks were created to feed us, why the razor sharp teeth to chomp swimmers’ torsos off with? Why not do away with the body altogether and just have fins latching onto rocks like barnacles? Fins evolved to steer these mean killing machines, not to make guests happy at Chinese wedding banquets. Every appendage of ‘God’s creations’ was built for survival, whether it’s a tiger’s penis or a scallop’s adductor muscle, and only happen to be delicious (don’t know about tiger penis) because that’s nature’s way of motivating carnivores to prey on them for their own survival.
As omnivores with no compelling reason to depend on animal flesh as part of our diet, it’s hard to take an objective stand on eating other sentient beings without appearing heartless or hypocritical. Sumiko has chosen the former, and at the same time suggesting that people who shun sharks’ fin like monkeys’ brains are hypocrites if they so much as eat Chicken McNuggets. Meat lovers who take the ‘humans are entitled to eat other animals’ approach should rear an animal from birth and then personally slaughter it for dinner, and perhaps they would think twice about that ‘face on the plate’ before talking about animals’ ‘feelings’. Anti-shark’s fin lobbyists should state for the record what they wouldn’t consider cruel eating, before boring wedding guests with their depressing statistics on shark kills which they took off Discovery Channel.
I do not deny enjoying meat, but I don’t believe a cow willingly sacrificed itself for my sake. I ate an animal that another human killed, and the animal probably suffered more than it deserved to. Blood and guts were spilled, and perhaps somewhere out there a calf is yearning for its dead mother. I’ll be the first to admit that I won’t slit a chicken’s throat so that I may eat it, though I may turn into a vegan for a couple of weeks if forced to do so. Better someone who savours every last drop of a depleting resource than one who eats it halfway and tosses it aside. So yes, Sumiko can have her soup and drink it and no one should stop her, though the looming soundtrack of ‘Jaws’ may play insidiously in the background while she’s at it.
Postscript: I’m floored by the amount of heated attention generated out something as trivial as Sumiko Tan eating shark’s fin soup. Many provocative opinions from both sides of the fence on this one, and here’s a summary of what has been said both by those against the practice and those who don’t mind the occasional delicacy.
1. Eating shark’s fin is cruel and eating a farmed animal is less so. Hell, you can’t even compare the two! I’ve seen the infamous Gordon Ramsay video myself of how sharks are sensationally dumped after being finned. Any argument on cruelty is assuming an anthropomorphic stance on how the victim might suffer under the circumstances. Because farming is industrialized and certified to conform to certain ‘minimisation of unnecessary suffering’ protocols, we usually assume that farmed animals have it easier. Still, a chicken spends its entire life cooped up and ‘enduring’ hock burns and all sorts of disfigurements, whereas a shark spends most of it in the wild prior to its untimely, ‘agonising’ demise. Sure you can be ‘humane’ in treating and ultimately killing an animal for food, but only by our own standards of what suffering means to them. Those who rely on the ‘farmed animals suffer less’ argument should spend some time at a chicken farm/slaughterhouse and see for themselves before one takes their views seriously.
2. Sharks are endangered and if they go extinct, eventually we would too. There are other ways whereby we’re already indirectly destroying the oceans, by widespread overfishing, going on luxury cruises, or supporting oil companies with a history of spills. Shark conservation is just one of many other proactive deeds we should be doing, and we shouldn’t be obsessing over a ban on one product while ignoring the blight of other hazardous human activities like tourism, industrial sewage or global warming on no less relevant marine lifeforms. If we elevated the shark to deity status while allowing its prey to dwindle through our actions, it kinda defeats the whole purpose, does it.
3. Sharking finning is not ‘sustainable’ and wasteful. Farming isn’t exactly ‘green’ either.
4. We shouldn’t impose our beliefs on others. This is personal, of course, and if you think embarrassing someone at a banquet is worth it for ‘the greater good’, then by all means, as long as you can define what that ‘greater good’ is, and are well prepared to be challenged on the subject. A related hot button is about ‘personal choice’. The question, then, is whether we have sufficient grounds to stop someone from making one. Smoking, for example, is a personal choice, and its effects are immediate (second hand smoke), and you have an obligation to your fellow man to intervene. Can you do the same for someone ordering shark’s fin soup, say, your grandmother on her 88th birthday?
5. Not wasting food is not an excuse. What’s the alternative then, if you’re stuck at a wedding table with 9 shark-lovers and you’re the only one who doesn’t think it’s ‘such a big deal’? The only way to make such a rejection effective is a dramatic walk-out (not that the bride and groom would host another banquet any time soon anyway). Otherwise leftovers would just be shared backdoors among the kitchen staff or nonchalantly dumped. In fact if you’re a true eco-warrior you shouldn’t be wasting ANY kind of food, and better find a means of it being consumed or put to good use. Yes, even if you’re being served monkeys’ brains.
6. All animals are fair game. No it’s not fair game. Animals are defenseless against our tools of capture. If not for technology we’d still be chasing rodents down burrows for dinner, not to mention catching trout with our bare hands. We eat large wild beasts today because we can, and part of the reason why shark fin eaters annoy us is because they don’t really HAVE TO eat the damn thing, especially since it lacks any significant nutritional value, or taste for that matter.
Filed under: 2012, Animal abuse, Local food, Weddings Tagged: | Animal abuse, local food, sumiko tan, Weddings
I am with Suminko on this – Animals are meant for consumption. That includes fins of a shark.
Those activists don’t make sense – what about the thousands of pigs or cows that get slaughtered everyday ? Chickens that never see the light of the day in farms ……
Those activists have too much time on their hands – next thing they will say that the humans should all be vegans. With more time, they will start to question why humans should eat anything at all.
@ong, your comparison to pigs and cows is off the mark. those animals are farmed; their population well under human control. whereas sharks are being hunted into extinction.
and while all animals slaughtered for meat should be spared suffering as much as possible (because the fact is, animals do feel pain), how sharks are left to die slowly after their fins are cut off is sheer cruelty.
lastly, since you’re with sumiko, you too should take heed of this advice to her: “you might want to read a few books on ethical consumption before you excrete what’s passes for an opinion.”
Ok…got your point – Slaughtering domesticated pigs, cows and chickens are ok. Slaughtering sharks in the wild not ok.
On the cruelty front – Slaughtering domesticated cows, pigs and chickens are ok. Its domesticated.
So to continue to enjoy tradition, the fix is to domesticate sharks.
Then slaughering sharks will be ok because it is domesticated.
For a moment there, I thought someone actually cared for the sharks……
Animals being meant for consumption, or created to be killed for food, is a ridiculously narrow assumption. Even if you consider them as a resource that man may utilize (be it for food, clothing, entertainment, or whatever else) they’re still resources that we could well use responsibly.
It’s true considerations of “feelings” may well be moot, seeing how the natural world works; predators rarely euthanize their prey comfortably. Then again mankind is slightly removed from the cycle of nature–why else do we call it man-made versus natural?–and has, for better or worse, the capacity to make tremendous changes in the planet, but lack of coordination and vision in the long-term. Certainly, nature will work itself out in the end, but possibly not to desirable outcomes.
What the hell do you mean by “too much time on their hands”? You think activists enjoy being continuously bashed by ignorant fools (which form the majority of “normal people” btw) and put down all the bloody time? They do this because they have a cause worth fighting for, and because the world is so crazily messed up by all you un-empathetic and cruel people who give in to the slightest whim and fancies of your taste buds.
“Animals are meant for consumption” Please enlighten us regarding the basis of that ridiculously insipid and morally inane assumption.
Tell you what, Ong, many anti-sharks fin activists are also broad animal activists – people who fight against animal farming, meat consumption, animals in captivity etc. You are completely right. Chickens and cows etc have their right to dignity and a free life, but not like that’s gonna connect to heartless unethical eaters that form the majority of people. Hence, the only way for activists to try to advance some sort of awareness and respect for Earth and its creatures is to start off small – something not so ambitious, like sharks fin. And now you complain that it’s preferential treatment.
And don’t be ridiculous. You think any activist will actually ask people to become vegan immediately? Even asking people like Sumiko Tan – and you – to even comprehend empathy and kindness, that’s way too much to expect. So please don’t pull that slippery slope fallacy here.
What a naive viewpoint.
No idea of the true facts of the situation…
Get your facts straight before you open your mouth..
Firstly , Cows and Pigs are reared and bred for consumption. They are farmed , and not endangered…
Secondly , Sharks are NOT bred and are wild endangered animals.
Millions of them are killed every year for a tasteless ingredient in a soup. If you took the shark fin out of the soup it would make no difference whatsoever , as it has no taste… try it one time..
Also the way they are killed is barbaric , and very cruel. A slow painful death..
If the Apex predator in an environment disappear , it affects the eco system as a whole and can have huge flow on effects . Look it up ..
People will eat what they want to eat. I don’t eat shark fin simply because i do not believe in causing the extinction of a species which scientist have said is important to the eco-system of the ocean. Animal cruelty does not weigh into the decision for me, other fish species that are probably going to go extinct if the sharks die out is a huge problem for me. Saying that when i reject a bowl of shark fin, usually someone will take it, I am entirely ok with that. Because I do things or boycott things base on my udnerstanding and my own lines of compromise, I do not expect others to do the same. Saying that I really hate it when i reject a bowl of shark fin and having shark fin eaters ask me sarcastically ” So u dun think its cruel to eat chicken?” or make other condescending remarks. when i boycott something , i just do it i do not explain nor do i preach to others, so someone who does it annoys me , equally true when someone like sumiko fires back with her logic
Chickens, pigs or cows are not cut up or amputated and then left to bleed to a slow painful, inhumane and horrible death, unlike the fate of sharks when caught for their fins… Not saying that it is alright to slaughter domesticated animals for food though…
Chickens, pigs or cows are not being slaughtered until many of their species are either extinct or on the brink of extinction, unlike sharks which are killed faster than they can reproduce with more than 100 million sharks being killed annually… Sharks are very important in helping to maintain the natural ecological system in balance…
Shark fins have a very high mercury content and consumption is akin to taking slow working poison, take it at your discretion if you insist…
Lastly, most (if not all) animal activists are vegans because they object against the slaughter of domesticated animals as well… By protesting against the consumption of shark fins does not mean we welcome the slaughter of domesticated animals for food…
Don’t assume…
There is a big difference with the pigs and cows that get slaughtered everyday versus the sharks that die.
Cows and chickens that are slaughtered for food are killed swiftly to minimize the suffering and pain.
The sharks aren’t slaughtered humanely. They cut off the fins, and then they discard the rest of the shark. So the shark gets back into the sea. Still alive, and in pain. It will eventually die since it’s no longer able to swim normally.
There’s that difference.
I’m a meat eater. I eat chickens and cows that are slaughtered humanely. I will refuse to eat chickens and cows that are not slaughtered humanely.
Not siding anyone, but define killed humanly. Even if u have a certain standard of being slain humanly for comsumtaion, how sure are you the place/farm that kills the animals did it as per your standards???
BBC aired a documentary a year or two ago – “Kill it, Cook it, Eat it”. It shows how farm animals (cows, pigs, lambs) are killed, and what strict laws the European Union has with regards to animal welfare. Google the topic, and you’ll be surprised how seriously animal welfare is taken esp. in the West.
If one were to follow your line of reasoning i.e. “how sure are you the place/farm that kills the animals did it as per your standards”, then one could also ask how sure are you these places follow the prescribed standards of hygiene? If the requirements are legally required, then the abbatoirs have to follow them, no if’s or but’s.
I think the eco-warriors over-react.
In fact, Sumiko’s argument’s are perfectly legitimate.
Why should one group of persons with particular perspectives be made beholden to others? That is basically imposing one’s personal rights and belief’s on others and infringing on their rights.
From a neutral standpoint, as much as the eco-warriors want people to subscribe to their views, it is as much the right of others to eat what they want.
The eco-warrriors who are concerned have as much right to abstain from that sharks fin if they have issues over its consumption’; but that does not mean that everyone should subscribe to or be beholden to their beliefs.
Just as we respect religious and intellectual freedom, it is does not make sense when it comes to personal choices of what people want to put in their mouths or stomach such freedoms are not tolerated. This is basically giving priority to special interest groups.
It is ironic when it reaches a point where people or government start telling other people how to live their lives, what they can eat, what they should do, how they spend their money, what type of food to buy. That is nothing better than a police state and machine.
The bottom line is that what the individual does is not harming others. If it does, that is when the law is supposed to step in and rectify the fault. But the law should not be used to impose one group’s emotional concerns on another when the basis of the claim does no harm to others.
Freedom should bring all together rather than be divisive. It is the freedom to be diverse that binds and the heterogeneity that divides.
That said, this is not to say that eco-friendly groups should be put down. In fact they do society good, but to take it personally over a single individual’s beliefs is going overboard.
The eco-warriors have a right as individuals to feel unhappy over her eating habits or how she decides to treat the issue of shark’s fins, but taking it out on her as an individual is an inappropriate forum.
I totally agree with you. Can’t be better said!
I think the key here is “sustainability”, is it sustainable if we keep fishing for sharks? I certainly do not support the myriad eco-warrior groups out there calling for a ban on shark finning as I feel that bans on anything do not achieve anything but merely drives what you are trying to stop underground.
For all the idiots who don’t understand the difference between eating domesticated animals (a process that took countless years and is now irreversible in the short run) and capturing wild animals for food, go read up before sharing your worthless thoughts there. It is something entirely different.
I am a biologist and I don’t think cruelty is good enough to justify our choice of wild food source, no offence to whose who are employing that argument, but that simply doesn’t stand. It is about depleting the oceans of its ecological regulators and this is devastating to all of ocean life. This will inevitably affect OUR (humans/homosapiens/your family/your society) food source of the so-called gentle (yeah, right), delicious fish that no one has any issues about consuming. It has come to a point that simple legal regulation of the shark fin trade means nothing, and will change nothing.
I support not eating shark fin because abstaining from it is now the only solution. It may not be forever, but for the sake of not upsetting the unpredictable ecosystem that BY THE WAY HUMANS CANNOT CONTROL (which is also related to many natural disasters), I think that is the strategy everyone can take for now. It is not like you cannot live without it.
And the argument about why we are caring about sharks more than we care about other animals who are also dying by the millions everyday is lame. It may be true, but it doesn’t matter. Do you shun your maths homework because people tell you, ‘what about your science homework, what about english, what about chinese?!’ You may prefer maths more but either way, you got to do something first right, not all at one time. Look, WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. So instead of whining about what luxury items you don’t get to eat, go out there and do something constructive for the ‘other things’ that people don’t care about.
There are idiots out there who are supporting these activities for less than sound reasons but it doesn’t mean you as the general public have to stoop down to their level to tell them what is wrong, because it is so DOWNRIGHT OBVIOUS to the trained biologists that some issues are meaningless. So if you want to oppose this, you can just start by saying, ‘I don’t care if I get wiped out by a tsunami tomorrow or some other fantastical natural disaster but I must eat my shark fin and other delicious things that will endanger my survival in the future, for the rest of my days. And I don’t care if it happens to my families after my death, they don’t matter to me. It matters to me less that I played a part in making their demise inevitable. Lovely.’
In a very selfish way, we are just trying to preserve mankind, our own survival. If you are against that, then okay la, why care. Just leave it to those who do care, you don’t have to support it.
BRAVA!! Thank you, I was beginning to not want to live on this planet anymore, on account of idiots.
I found it remarkably ironic that Sumiko Tan talks about documentaries; did she not watch Gordon Ramsay’s expose on the shark’s fin trade. Sharks aren’t being killed; they’re being tortured. If having your limbs lopped off and left to slowly bleed out and die isn’t torture, I don’t know what is.
weak arguments aplenty…the argument is 2-fold 1) sharks are endangered in many areas, and their reduction in numbers can scre p our marine eco system, and 2) finning in itself is a cruel way.
No one arguing for a ban on trading in sharks fin denies that battery chickens are treated poorly at time. However, 1) they are not endangered as a species 2) consumption of chicken provides valuable protein for meat eaters, while sharks fins are non-essential
So can the pro-sharks fin eaters please pick appropriate exampled to strengthen otherwise weak arguments and comparisons?
1) she says she will never order a bowl of shark’s fin herself
this implies that she does not have the so-called predatory or “shark-destructive” instincts attributed to her that everyone seems to heaping on her or more accurately implying that she has
At the worst, she’s just apathetic and couldn’t care less what happens
2) she says she won’t mind having a bowl of shark’s fin if it is presented to her
economically, it makes sense. Would an individual just waste the food set in front even if they have objections?
Does not eating shark’s fin just because an individual have qualms or issues against it solve anything? By not eating, it is just contributing to the chain of economic waste. The shark is already dead, the fin is harvested. Not eating it will not bring a dead shark back to life.
I do not refute that there is evidence that there is overfishing and many species are facing extinction. But the whole debate over Sumiko Tan’s article from the outset seems to have been redherring-ed by the final paragraph about her world views. The entire debate or the real issue in dispute is substantively “intellectual freedom to believe or subscribe to a particular perspective”
There has been alot of flak raised over her last paragraph, but that is her own belief. Has she caused harm to anybody else by believing as she has? She has not committed the physical act of killing a shark.
By taking it out on her personally over the sharks fin comments, it is obscuring the real issue at hand which is – Do you have a right to impose your perspectives or beliefs on her? Is it masquerading as an attempt to restrain and exhibit intolerance to intellectual freedom?
Just as the activists views are to be respected, attacking an individual over her beliefs of shark’s fin as a dish is an inappropriate forum. If any action or protests should be done, it should be against the people doing the harvesting of shark’s fins and not against an individual’s beliefs
Rather than imposing beliefs, I believe it is also pointing out the flaws of that person’s individual thinking? There is a fine line between both.
The respect goes both ways, no one is forcing her to change anything, she can go ahead and buy/eat shark fin if she wants to. The activists have their own reasons for wanting to ban shark fin consumption because the world is in danger, they can choose to petition against it, but the decision-makers are still the companies and the producers. It is their choice, are they forcing it upon people, well, yes to some extent but its their supply, they have the final say.
Personal choice can also be extended to the possession of firearms and other criminal acts. They can choose to do it, but in this case, the world will bear its consequence If this practice has the potential to blow up to something big, then I think many people would want to have a say about it, but this doesn’t make her ‘wrong’ to think that way in any sense.
And it is not very responsible to push all the blame to the producers. Would they continue harvesting if no one wants to buy shark fins? I doubt so. Anyone who knows the basic laws of demand and supply would understand. If there is a demand, people are going to find that supply, and if the demand is high enough, they will go to the ends of the earth to find it. We as consumers have our part to play. She has the right to believe whatever she wants, but I think it is necessary to know the full extent of what she is believing in.
It is like how people say sorry and you are still angry because you think they don’t even know what they are apologising for. Same action, different intention.
Yes animals are meant for consumption, which is why I enjoy my dog meat without guilt every now and then whenever I’m in China.
What else would you expect from a half Japanese. They still hunt whales and kill dolphins. Hope she gets a limb bitten off by a shark the next time she dares venture into the ocean. See how she likes it.
chickens, cow, sheep.. they aren’t the top of the food chain.
sharks are.
minus it, and everything under will be affected.
so. since there are other sources of food available, why not just don’t eat the real shark fin and have the imitation one instead? the taste’s almost the same anyway.
can she write about things other than her life?
Before everyone gets carried away any further, here’s the bulk of Sumiko’s argument in full (I extracted only parts of the article due to space contraints). Get the Sunday Times for the entire article.
…Anti-shark’s fin soup advocates cite two main reasons the dish should be banned.
One is cruelty. Fishermen, they say, perform ‘finning’ where the coveted fins of the sharks are hacked off and the rest of the fish, sometimes still alive, thrown back into the sea to sink and die.
The other is the environment. They say the killing of sharks for their fins is depleting the world’s shark population with some species almost extinct, and this has dire effects on the ocean’s eco-system.
I would never order a bowl of shark’s fin soup for myself.
But this is not so much because of the anti-shark’s fin lobby, although I am sympathetic to its argument about protecting the environment. It is because I’m still tired of it, given how much I’d consumed when I was young.
But if I am served a bowl of shark’s fin – like at my recent Chinese New Year’s Eve reunion dinner – I will take it.
I’ll take it because it is there.
I’ll take it because the soup is tasty.
I’ll take it because it will be a sheer waste of money to leave it untouched to be then thrown away.
Mostly, though, I’ll take it because it will be rude to my host if I don’t.
If someone had honoured me by serving the treasured dish, I don’t believe I should be so ungracious as to reject it, and in front of other people too. Why make him lose face?
A friend said he so dislikes people who give others a hard time at wedding dinners that serve shark’s fin soup that he’ll deliberately eat extra portions.
‘If they’re really all that compassionate, they should stop eating meat too. Killing cows and chickens is also cruel,’ he said.
Indeed, where does one draw the line as an ‘ethical consumer’?
At shark’s fin? But what about shark meat? It’s been used in the West for fish and chips and such.
Is it okay for sharks to be killed for their meat but not their fins? Isn’t any form of ‘killing’ traumatic to the animal? Why limit it to finning?
How about foie gras? It must be horrible to be a goose and force-fed just so that your liver becomes enlarged and deliciously fatty and buttery when eaten.
Feedlot cattle? Can’t be nice to be packed in a pen with thousands of others, fattened up with an unnatural diet, then killed for food.
Factory-farmed chicken that have been debeaked? Same thing.
Bluefin tuna? They’re becoming endangered because of over-fishing.
My sister tries to eat only ‘humanely raised’ and ‘humanely killed’ animals. She feels less bad if they had been killed in as least a painful method as possible.
But she admits it’s not all altruistic. She believes animals that are highly stressed have stress hormones and their meat isn’t healthy to the human body.
But isn’t ‘humanely killed’ a contradiction?
In my world view, animals – unless they have been domesticated – were created to be killed by humans for food.
And if you’ve watched documentaries, you’ll know animals in the wild are vicious. They rip apart and kill each other all the time, whether for food or to protect themselves or their young.
It’s all part of nature and the cycle of life, so why are some people so hung up about what animals might be ‘feeling’?
A friend, who reviews food, describes herself as an ‘equal opportunity eater’. She eats almost anything as it is her job to do so, and because she doesn’t think one species deserves more sympathy than another.
She recently had dinner and was served a roast piglet. She showed me an iPhone photo of it and, my goodness, we both agreed, it was the cutest little piggy ever.
It had been roasted to a rosy hue, had a round little head and its eyes were closed, as if it were sleeping. Totally angelic.
She ate it.
It’s a pig.
It’s meant to be eaten.
There are some things I would never eat – dog meat, snake, frog, turtle, pigeon, oysters, chicken feet, insects and gooey stuff such as sea cucumber.
But this has more to do with how they make my stomach turn than with ethical reasons.
To each his own, I always say.
We are ultimately what we eat, or don’t eat, and we live with our conscience.
What gets my goat is when ethical consumers adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and hector anyone who is not like them.
And so, at the risk of receiving their vitriol, I’ll admit it again: If served shark’s fin soup, I’ll eat it.
Maybe, as a friend pointed out, I also represent a generational divide.
I straddle my father’s generation that regarded shark’s fin as a cultural and culinary treasure, and today’s young that thinks the dish is barbaric.
I have good memories of it and want to remain loyal to it, yet I also don’t want to be flamed for not hating it. It is an uncomfortable position.
But if I have to choose between ranting about cruelty to sharks and hurting the feelings of someone who had served me the dish because he wanted only the best for me, I will keep quiet and eat up my shark’s fin soup, anytime.
As a journalist, Sumiko Tan should know that foie gras, feedlot cattle, factory farmed chicken etc, and even the wearing of fur, are all hot button topics in the West. And it’s laugable how many Singaporeans think the campaign against shark’s fins is some sort of ploy by animal activists targeting Asians. If they care to educate themselves, they will realise there are similar campaigns in the West too.
As for the piglet, there’s nothing wrong with eating it, provided it has not been killed in a cruel manner, like they do when harvesting shark fins. Ditto for chickens and cows.
Her piece is nothing but a weak attempt to try and justify the eating of shark fins, even as she acknowledges the cruel methods used when harvesting the fins. And of course, it is interesting to note that she says that animals, unless domesticated, are fair game as food. Someone should tell her that chickens and pigs are also considered domesticated. And I wonder what she makes of the hunting of rhinos to extinction because of the demand for their horns (for medicinal purposes) – does she consider hunting an animal to extinction a-okay, because after all, the rhino (like sharks) are not domesticated.
Like I said, a weak article all around.
Goodness ,
where to start… dy2shoez says :
“I extracted only parts due to space constraints..”, then goes on forever.
The basis of your argument for eating sharks fin is ,as you say ” it will be rude to my host if I dont”…
Not the fact that the whole oceanic eco-system is at risk. Nor the way the sharks are killed.
This person says :
I’ll take it because it is there.
I’ll take it because the soup is tasty.
I’ll take it because it will be a sheer waste of money to leave it untouched to be then thrown away.
Mostly, though, I’ll take it because it will be rude to my host if I don’t.
If someone had honoured me by serving the treasured dish, I don’t believe I should be so ungracious as to reject it, and in front of other people too. Why make him lose face?
Where do your ideals lie? Just say you dont want it.
If you believe that shark finning is wrong, dont eat it.
Say you dont like it.
Its easy.
Dont worry tho, in a few years , if people like you keep eating it , it wont exist. Sharks WILL be gone, for a stupid bowl of tasteless fin soup.
This will have devastating consequences for the marine environment.
And your idiot friend who says :
‘If they’re really all that compassionate, they should stop eating meat too. Killing cows and chickens is also cruel,’ he said.
its not just about compassion. He is missing the point entirely.
Its not just about how they are killed , its also about the impact losing sharks will have. Do your goddamn research.
Unfortunately people who have these viewpoints base them on uninformed decision.
Start SCUBA diving and see what impact the marine environment has gone through. Once sharks are gone the eco-system collapses.
I know many people who have eaten sharks fin for their ” tradition “.
They are now SCUBA divers , and they have seen what has happened to the oceans ,once these important predators have gone.
Wastelands , oceanic deserts….
Go on… Enjoy that stupid bowl of soup. Was it really worth it?
Its not you who will have to see the impact. it will be your children , and their children.
Sharks fin is tasteless anyway. Its chicken broth that makes the taste … or didnt you even know that?????
Try making it once……….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzrRmB40l00&feature=related
let’s not be hypocrites. As long as we eat meat all animals are fair game for man’s consumption.
That’s a good one for posting the entire article.
It’s amazing how fast emotions get charged without isolating the real substantive issues of dispute
Sheer hypocrisy. People should make up their minds.
Wanting to sound like the good guy & yet contributing to the needless killing of sharks. When someone refuses to eat already prepared sharksfin it is sending a message out to stop doing it. It does have an effect when people make their stand. It diminishes the popularity of the dish.
Claiming not wanting to waste food is absolute rubbish.
Yums – yes, I totally agree with your point of view. We are either for or against. Claiming not wanting to waste food is a cop-out.
“For all the idiots…” and that would include Sumiko Tan, a SPECTACULAR idiot who, in her position, should be influencing people to make this world a better place. The above article in reponse to Sumiko’s arrogant and inane article is intelligent and very thoughful. There is NO comparison between killing animals raised for food and finning sharks in the wild. Too many goos and thoughtful people have explained the difference but sheer stupidity and thoughtlessness prevent many others from understanding the simple differnce – the cruelty factor. Eating shark’s fin is every bit as cruel as the Chinese practice of eating monkey’s brains – strapping the monkey down, sawing it’s head off and slurping the brain, all white the poor monkey is still alive. I believe this is still done in HK and parts of China.
Tsk, tsk, Sumiko u simply miss the point! Is it just old age or plain ignorance?
I’m sympathethic towards the activists and would honestly be glad if sharks fins are no longer served anywhere anymore. (And Sumiko’s view of “animals are created for human consumption” sickened me). But attacking people for not refusing the prepared bowl of soup? “Cop-out”? “Hypocrite”? Seriously? Am I missing something? That soup would just go into someone’s stomach or the trash while I’m supposed to sit there pretending I made an impact on denouncing the popularity of the dish (for the record, I’d just feel really bad for the shark if it does to go the trash). Yes, denouncing the popularity so that they stop serving it is a good idea, but I don’t think that’s the best way to go about it. Someone tell me- rationally- if I’m missing something.
I strongly agree with the critics of Ms Tan, as she’s totally out of her element when talking about animal rights issues or anything biblical at all!
I’d just like to add that her remarks comparing sharks to cows and pigs it completely off the mark, as the way these animals are killed is so different. She would be more accurate to compare shark-finning to killing elephants for their tusks or rhinos for their horns.
Shark-finning is POACHING, plain and simple. The more awareness we can create for this issue, the better.
This has nothing to do with domesticated animals, which are more or less regulated where feeding and slaughter is concerned.
Sharks, on the other hand, eat whatever they want, wherever they want, which means they’re probably eating the mercury-laden fish that we’re supposed to avoid. Isn’t anyone concerned about that?
Last,
[...] *Sumiko Tan’s full column on 5th Feb can be read (here). There is also a healthy debate on her column going on (here). [...]
[...] Daily Disclosure – Diary of a Singapore Cabby: Pot-Luck for “Lo Hei” [Thanks WJ] – Gintai_昇泰: Retard at Nanyang Polytechnic – Yummy Chrispytine…Still: The Maid. [Thanks Lilian] – Everything Also Complain: Sumiko Tan had shark’s fin soup coming out of her ears [...]
Are you not putting words in her mouth.
What is the difference than between those who you accuse/accost in the blog and your own statements.
There is no allowance in diversity of opinions.
Just do as i say.
At the least, the neo cons recognised that there is space for divergence although they may disagree with sentiments
Sumiko also said she would never order a sexual tryst for herself.
But if she is served a session of it – like in exchange for some private juicy journalistic sensational information – she’ll take it.
she’ll take it because it is there.
she’ll take it because the news is juicy
she’ll take it because it will be a sheer waste of opportunity to leave it untouched then to be long forgotten later.
Mostly, though, she’ll take it because it will be rude to her source if she don’t.
If someone had honoured her by offering her the treasured news, she don’t believe she should be so ungracious as to reject it, and in front of other people too. Why make him lose face?
A friend, by the name of Cecilia, said she so dislikes people who give others a hard time at meetings that serve great opportunities that she’ll deliberately eat extra portions…
————————————————
and its not about wild vs domesticated/farmed, nor is it cruel or uncruel… (maybe it also is) but think about how long a shark takes to grow from a fertilised egg into adulthood VS how long a chicken/cow whatever animal you eat grow to adulthood before all you pro-shark eaters like sumiko tan sprout nonsensical comments…
ohhh btw, just to share, the most ultimate response i get from a sharkfin lover at a wedding dinner is that he heard somewhere there is a new technology in japan that allows the shark to grow back its fins after it is cut off…. thats y he is eating extra servings of shark fin soup……. this one takes the cake…..
Can someone please cut off ALL four of her limbs? Without anesthesia?
With all due respect, the bitch will still have her mouth to eat shark fins.
Cut off the shark’s fin = soup ingredient.
Cut off Sumiko’s limbs you go to jail for a long time.
This is the difference between animals and humans.
Animals are for consumption.
If there’s anything to preserve…..I’ll focus more of my energy to making the world a better place for people than animals.
@ong – “Cut off the shark’s fin = soup ingredient.
Cut off Sumiko’s limbs you go to jail for a long time.
This is the difference between animals and humans.”
going to jail is only because there is such a thing called law. what then determines law? society? or a group of ppl called legislators who may think they know what everyone else is thinking?
there are no laws in stone age. Are the cavemen who evolved into what we are today considered “human” (or any less human then you and me) then?
or what if this happens in a cannibalistic community? is there a difference between animals and humans then? can we cut sumiko’s limbs off then?
btw, making the world a “better” place for humans also include protecting animals and the econsystem and environment we live in…
anyway from her article, i conclude that sumiko is a dumb ignorant self-centred bitch with no moral compass or backbone and with all due credit, or lackthereof, its the straits times… so there…
A world view that animals were created to be killed by humans for food?!? No wonder the world is so chaotic. Have you seen how terrified every sentient being is when they are about to be killed? Now imagine you are that sentient being. Please, have compassion.
“Sumiko, I want the best (man) for you too and I am the best… So will you keep quiet too and have sex with me, anytime? Surely you would also know the right choice between ranting about choosing your Prince Charming and hurting the feelings of someone who offers to be your Prince Charming right?”
[...] http://everythingalsocomplain.com/2012/02/05/sumiko-tan-had-sharks-fin-soup-coming-out-of-her-ears/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Categories: Wei Chin Comments (2) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback [...]
Political correctness has (finally) come to this most politically incorrect place of the world! To celebrate, I will order a big bowl of shark’s fin soup, super upsized!