Consumption of live fishes, turtles, lobsters and frogs is part of the food chain for humans. It is no different to that of larger livestock like pigs, cows and lambs. It is mother nature's way for survival.

Chopping off the head of frogs and slicing jumping fishes is the only way to prepare fresh meats that retain the succulent and aromatic quality in cooking. Does it make any difference if the animals are slaughtered in the wet market or at home?

The dichotomy between slaughtering live creatures in public and in private for freshness lies in the perceptions. Unless we abstain from eating meats, we cannot avoid this inconvenient paradox.

If we entrust the sellers to slaughter the animals out of sight and have them delivered to our homes we must bear extra costs of delivery and the risks of delivery of wrong frozen meats. Is that option realistic?

On the crammed conditions of storing fishes and frogs during business hours, the practice can be traced to practical reasons - transportation and space constraints. The sellers would invariably free the fishes and frogs in a larger area to prevent suffocation or deaths. The animals are only worth good money when sold alive at the market.

I don't share the sentiment behind the call to stop consumption of live animals because of cruelty in slaughter. After all, can we consume meats without killing the animals first? It is more practical to execute slaughter of live animals in an enclosed area in the wet markets.

Paul Chan Poh Hoi