Hong Kong needs to take control of its taxi drivers
Hong Kong needs to take control of its taxi drivers.
It seems passengers don't decide where they will go, taxi drivers do - they won't take passengers across the harbour or some other destinations.
I have been visiting Hong Kong regularly, from Sydney, for more than 20 years, attending many trade fairs and business meetings. I have often had to wait like the proverbial dance hall wallflower for a taxi driver who deigns to be my partner. Declaring I want to go to the other side of the harbour, they don't want to go to.
The law which requires them to not unreasonably refuse to take a hirer to where they want to go is simply flouted.
It is a disgraceful way to treat locals and an even worse way to treat frequent visitors like me who actually spend money in your beautiful city.
My complaint to the Transport Complaints Unit got me exactly nowhere. I'm dreading my next visit in October.
Bruce Propert, Sydney, Australia
So you've been coming to HK for 20 years and you still don't know how to tell which taxi rank is cross harbour? Despite the fact that Cross Harbour taxi ranks have a sign stating that very fact? Or that taxis with an out-of-service sign up are actually looking to cross the harbour to go home at end of shift?
As for a disgraceful way to treat locals - just about every local knows how to tell which taxi is cross harbour.
Posted by dave on 28 August 2007 at 11:35 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: Hong Kong, scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Airport needs new procedures
K. W. Chow, for the director of immigration ("Staff at airport hitting targets", August 13), replied to my letter on the time it took to go through immigration at Chek Lap Kok ("Long wait in line out of order", July 31).
As I am a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I assure him I am able to read my watch correctly. The use of averages is known to miss fluctuations, and a 92 per cent standard does not yield good-quality service. Indeed, why should visitors wait in line on average 15 minutes to leave? I have not experienced this type of wait when leaving other places.
Further, while eight counters were open, Mr Chow admits that only 15 per cent of visitors used the three counters that had almost no traffic, as I observed in my letter.
Thus, the procedures should be improved so that visitors leaving Hong Kong are not subject to long waits.
Jerry Hausman, professor of economics, MIT, Boston, US
(Unlike most of the times I quote a letter to the SCMP, this time I don't think the writer is unhinged.)
One of the issues which Prof. Hausman mentions above (and which was referred to in the Director of Immigration reply earlier) was the average time taken to go through outbound immigration. The Immigration Department has spent a great deal of time and effort to speed up the processing of residents as they go through the various border controls we have in Hong Kong. Much of this effort has been the replacement of paper based systems with electronic systems, and the whole SmartID system.
If Prof. Hausman had glanced to his right while queuing, he may have noticed some people approaching turnstiles, using a card of some kind and apparently being processed electronically. Total time through inbound or outbound immigration for those lucky people? Under a minute, depending on the volume of people. When I return to HK usually, I don't stop walking from leaving the plane to collecting my bags.
So how to get one of those electronic cards? Well, you have to be a permanent resident[1] with a SmartID card. Unfortunatey for Prof. Hausman, that means that you must be resident in HK for a period of 7 years.
[1] I've heard rumours that the electronic system will be extended to non-permanent residents, but I've not heard anything concrete about that. UPDATE: Spike confirms in the comments that the E-Channel at the airport is usable by ordinary residents.
This short processing time naturally makes the average processing time look very good. And, as the vast majority of border crossers are permanent residents, the costs benefit analysis is clearly on the side of improving the experience for permanent residents.
One of the primary drivers behind the whole speeding up of the immigration process has been the land-based borders (we're supposed to call them 'boundaries' now) with China. The Lo Wu border, for example, can handle several hundred thousand travellers per day, largely thanks to immigration on the HK and China sides being largely electronic. There are queues at the non-electronic immigration gates there too, but they're nothing like the airport queues.
Note that this doesn't change Prof. Hausman's point at all: there are still far too few Immigration officials manning the Visitor gates at the airport and this can create a poor first (or last) impression as to the efficiency of the airport and Hong Kong.
The Immigration department separates the categories according to equipment required to process the travel documents. Permanent residents just have their ID cards scanned, Ordinary residents will require a passport stamp, while visitors will require a visa sticker or stamp. Officers at non-visitor gates will almost certainly not have the equipement required to process visitors and this is a big part of the problem. It's 2007, we should be entirely electronic with visitor records now. The Australians have electronic Visas, so why doesn't HK record a visitor visa on the passport number electronically?
There is a way to bypass the long visitor queues, if you're a regular visitor: Frequent Visitor Card. Unfortunately, it requires that you have come to Hong Kong three or more times in the last 12 months, but it may be of value anyway.
Posted by dave on 18 August 2007 at 14:26 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: Hong Kong, Travel, scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (3)
More Climate Change Denialism
I just saw this in this morning's SCMP. It's part of an editorial by Tony Latter:
I'm just waiting for the local libertarian loons like Simon Patkin and the Interchangeable Randroids from the Lion Rock Institute to chime in. Seriously, are my tax dollars being used to pay this man's salary so he can regurgitate right-wing nonsense? Are Exxon funding his talking points?
Posted by dave on 25 July 2007 at 13:21 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Research health impact of Wi-fi
Research health impact of Wi-fi
Some people believe that Wi-fi enables people to access the internet conveniently and more economically.
The MTR Corporation (SEHK: 0066) is installing a Wi-fi network so that passengers can access the internet on its underground trains. The government proposes installing such networks in public places.
However, in Britain, some people have expressed concerns about the safety aspects of Wi-fi, fearing it could have an adverse impact on children. I would like to see the government in Hong Kong conducting extensive research and launching some pilot projects, before there is any widespread expansion of these networks.
Until we are confident that Wi-fi does not pose a risk, we should not be promoting this technology.
Eddie Lau, Sheung Shui
Sure, there are people in England who believe that WiFi is evil radiation which will fry your brain. These people, who clearly are not at home to scientific thinking, are being conned by charlatans who also sell products which will protect you.
See also: Phone Mast Allergy 'in the mind'.
Posted by dave on 25 July 2007 at 12:17 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Disney's piracy not fit for HK
Disney's piracy not fit for HK
On a recent visit with my daughters to Hong Kong Disneyland, I came across the "Pirates" promotion.
I remember reading, when Disneyland was being built, that there would be no pirate attractions, out of respect for the fact that piracy was, in this part of the world, a real concern. But this seems to have been put aside for the sake of bumping up the gross take of Disney's latest Johnny Depp vehicle, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.
I took my children to see the movie and found it appallingly inappropriate. The violence was over the top and I walked out.
I will forgive Disney this once, especially since they are going to have their first African American princess, The Frog Princess, set in New Orleans, but please don't do it again.
Joy Kingan, Discovery Bay
Where to begin? For a start, the movie was rated as a category IIa movie in Hong Kong (PG13 in the US), which indicates that parental guidance was required, and specifically that explicit violence may be present. (From: Hong Kong Movie Ratings on Wikipedia.)
Ms. Kingan could have checked out the trailer: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End to decide if the movie was suitable for children. ("Scary but cool", say my kids.)
Or she could've used her common sense! It's not like the Pirates series is an unknown quantity or a movie marketed in some stealth fashion, where no one knows what it's about. The opening shots of the first movie have dead bodies, for heaven's sake! How on earth can you be ignorant of the likely content of the movie?
(Aside: Ms Kingan's essay (I presume it's the same Joy Kingan) Where's the Backwater now? is a curious essay - does Shanghai really have better urban planning than Vancouver? Is the PRC government really doing more to counter climate change than many western governments?)
Posted by dave on 16 July 2007 at 13:00 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)
Mind your U's
I note that there was an error in the spelling of "favourite" in the full-page advertisement for your newspaper featuring Lan Kwai Fong Holdings chairman Allan Zeman.
That the error was not discovered and corrected is somewhat of a surprise, given the very large size of the text. There is no humor or honor when yo drop the "u" from words such as flavour, colour, harbour and rumour.
PHILLIP DAVIES, Sha Tin
There is little more tedious that the whinging pom who thinks that everyone should speak and spell the plummiest of Oxbridge English.
This lamentable subset of Englishness manifests itself as hysterical gibbering against those Americans who spell certain words without a U, as the loonie twit above demonstrates.
Posted by dave on 19 March 2007 at 11:29 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
What about those left out of Tang's great tax giveaway?
What about those left out of Tang's great tax giveaway?
My husband and I - and our two children - whooped with glee during the TV news last night, as we heard that Henry Tang Ying-yen is handing out tax-cut pennies from heaven. But I was brought back to Earth this morning when I read the paper and got the details: the one-off, 50 per cent tax rebate is for salary earners only.
Where is the fairness there? The self-employed are middle-class people too, who, moreover, do not benefit from the perks of working for someone else. I am referring to the HK$100,000 personal tax allowance, holiday pay, sick leave, a medical plan ... never mind a housing allowance or the chance to send my children to Eton on an overseas education subsidy - a benefit of being a top civil servant, I understand.
For us self-employed, it's "no work, no pay" - and a profits-tax obligation that starts with the first dollar of profit earned. I'm glad for all the salary earners, but I hope that the financial secretary will give a break to those of us who have been inspired by the entrepreneurial spirit of Hong Kong to become self-employed.
How about some of those one-off pennies from heaven for us next year, please, Mr Tang?
Ms. Kingan, you need to read your Tax form more closely or get a better accountant.
From the IRD Press Release:
Individuals with rental and business income, if eligible, will be able to enjoy the tax waiver by electing personal assessment in their 2006-07 tax returns. The Inland Revenue Department will check if the election will reduce the amount of tax payable in each case, and assess the taxpayer in the way to his advantage.
You don't pay the flat rate on all income earned, you are still entitled to claim the approx. $100,000 tax free allowance per person, plus allowances for children, dependents, etc, as well as mortgages interest relief, education, etc.
But even if you don't do that, you're still only paying a maximum of the maximum rate, which is 16%. Anyone who complains that they're paying too much tax in Hong Kong is quite welcome to determine what they'd pay in another country and see if they're better off here.
And if you elected to move to another country, would you have our excellent public transport, and public medical care available? Or would you be paying a fortune for running a vehicle and health insurance?
Posted by dave on 02 March 2007 at 11:24 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)
Not Asian but gweipor
Not Asian but gweipor
With reference to his letter "Either black or white" (February 16), William Hung Chi-kin obviously did not ask me, the child of mixed-race marriage, how I am generally perceived by society. His opinion that the answer would be either "as black" or "as Asian" is way off. Having grown up in Hong Kong, I have rarely been considered Asian, much as I would like to be. I am considered a gweipor. When I speak in Cantonese (fluently, may I add), I can guarantee that the initial reaction is jaw-dropping surprise or embarrassment - depending on whether comments have been muttered that the offending party thought I would not understand.
Mr Hung obviously did not ask my fellow Eurasian friends either who, like me, are proud to be of mixed heritage and would love to be recognised for it.
CHRISTINE DE SANTIS, Repulse Bay
With all due respect Ms. De Santis, you have failed to grasp Mr. Hung's point.
In a predominantly White culture, a Eurasian such as yourself (and my own children) will be viewed as something 'less than white'. Thus, if you were to go to London and ask people what you were, they'd call you Asian (or more likely a Chinese, because Asian generally means something slightly different in London).
The reason you are not called Asian in Hong Kong is because of the innate racism of the Chinese. As someone who is half-Chinese (I'm assuming this because you speak fluent Cantonese like my children do), you will be viewed by the local Chinese as something less than a full Chinese, so they elevate you to the rank of the race 'below' Chinese and call you a GweiPo (Western Woman).
(Gweipor: there's no R on the end of that word. If you've been handicapped by an education in Received Pronounciation and feel the need to write R's on the end of words which are not pronounced with an R and no R for words which are rhotically gifted, you should be aware that many people think you have a speech problem. Idea does not have a pronounced R at the end, while deer does.
UPDATE: I don't mean to single out the Chinese for racism as if no other group was. Any group which defines itself by ethnicity will regard those with mixed ethnicity as not really part of the group. I'm sure many Irish people wouldn't regard my kids as being completely Irish, for example.
Posted by dave on 18 February 2007 at 00:21 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: China, Hong Kong, Personal, scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
What do you think of the smoking ban?
Since January 1st 2007, smoking in most public places, such are bars and restaurants, has been illegal in Hong Kong. Surprisingly, given the local culture, the ban has been extremely effective. The first 'Golden Week' holiday, when buses of mainlanders come down, will be interesting as smoking is practically compulsory for men in China.
There has been an increase in whinging letters to the SCMP, though, as smokers are suddenly realising that they have to go outside to light up now:
What do you think of the smoking ban?
Everybody knows that with the latest smoking ban the suffering has shifted from non-smokers to smokers.
Smokers were already used to suppressing themselves in large restaurants out of respect for non-smokers. Surely this universal ban must be the last straw. Also, small cafe owners must now wonder whether non-smokers will take the place of smokers.
This is laughable. Smokers were most certainly not used to 'suppressing themselves in large restaurants out of respect for non-smokers'. Smokers were free to indulge their vice and blow their second hand smoke in the faces of those who wanted to be able to enjoy their food. Hong Kong restaurants never really took the concept of separating the smoking and non-smoking areas seriously. Frequently, the table next to you could be denoted as a smoking table and populated by a bunch of chain-smokers.
The last straw for what? An antisocial and harmful habit? Being forced to inhale second hand smoke when all you really want is some noodles?
As for suffering, pardon me while I roll my eyes. Whining about self-inflicted suffering is pathetic.
Smokers are now forced to smoke in the street. You will see more of them standing on the pavement in the coming weeks.
No one is forcing you to stand out in the cold wind. If you want to stay indoors, don't smoke. If you're not capable of going out for a drink or a meal without a cigarette perhaps you have an addiction?
Is this what we really want? Was this decision based on the majority of non-smokers and businesses or just a few?
This decision was based on decades of research showing clearly that both first-hand and second hand smoke is very bad for your (and everyone else's) health. All this whinging about how your freedoms are being infringed means nothing because most smokers never cared about the freedom of non-smokers from noxious smoke.
You know something? It's nice to be able to go out for a drink and not return stinking like an ashtray. It's nice to go for yum cha and not have to deal with the constant wafting of smoke across the table. It's nice to be able to go to a restaurant and be able to taste your food, without being nauseated by the stink of stale tobacco.
It's not a restriction of your freedoms, it's a restoration of the balance between your freedoms and my freedoms. You're free to smoke, but you're not free to inflict your waste smoke on me. I'm free to enjoy my drink, but not free to piss on your leg.
Balance.
Posted by dave on 09 January 2007 at 12:57 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: Health, Rants, scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
He's back and he's still astroturfing
Third (at least) time around for Mr Ron Goodden, of Atlanta Georgia. Once again, he feels that the appropriate place for stating the right-wing American point of view is the letters page of the SCMP. Quite why this is, no one seems to know, and he (or his sock puppet) didn't say when he turned up here (link).
As I said elsewhere, perhaps it is felt somewhere that Americans abroad require reminders of the party line on occasion.
Saddam's execution sets precedent for accountability.
While effete European sensitivities recoil from capital punishment, Iraqis, with their more direct and compelling stake in the case, correctly carried out the death sentence on Saddam Hussein.
How many people in living memory more rightly deserved death? A generation of Iraqi Kurds and Shiites were ready to see their own relatives' deaths avenged upon this heartless agent of terror, who was impelled solely by his outsized ego. Arguing that his execution might foment more domestic discord assumes that democracy's opponents aren't already doing their worst, and discounts the obvious benefits of removing the figurehead of a murderous insurgency.
The surviving relatives of Hussein's victims were owed whatever closure his forfeited life has provided; more than even this, would-be despots everywhere were owed this fresh reminder of the punishment monstrous crimes still attract.
RON GOODDEN, Atlanta
According to various sources including CNN and Riverbend (an Iraqi blogger), Saddam's last words were "There is no God but God and Muhammed is his prophet", although he was cut off mid sentence. So, this Sunni leader was killed by Shi'a on a Sunni Holy day and died with the profession of Islamic faith on his lips.
This was, to paraphrase someone else, the very best ending that Saddam could have reasonably hoped for. He now looks like a martyr to the Sunni.
Posted by dave on 02 January 2007 at 13:29 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Internet Resilience
From this mornings SCMP:
Didn't the inventors of the internet claim that it would continue functioning despite anything, even an atomic war?
If so, how come we're now cut off from the world because an earthquake damaged four undersea cables?
Ron Baker, Tsim Sha Tsui
I don't know if they used those exact words, but the Internet protocols are very robust indeed and will usually find a path (if one exists) to the desired hosts. The problem with the internet this week hasn't been that the protocols are weak, it's been that there was a single point of failure for most communications.
We're hardly cut off from the world. I experience about a day or so of poor or little connectivity, and everything seems to be back to normal about now. That may just be my ISP routing through Singapore. Other people seem to be having more of an issue, but even at the worst, I could still contact other sites, even if I couldn't reach everywhere.
Blame PCCW for focusing all our international infrastructure on a few links going through an earthquake zone, not the Internet.
Various media reports have been going on about how we need satellite data links. I'm not sure how much good that would really do. Satellites are always available (assuming they're in geostationary orbit and theres no large objects in the way), but they're a long way away. Data will take a significant amount of time to get there, even travelling at the speed of light, so the latency would be worse, even though the bandwidth would be ok. What that means in practice is that and kind of streaming transmission (like iChat, Skype or online games) would be poor, although raw data (webpages) should be OK.
Posted by dave on 30 December 2006 at 09:00 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: Geekery, scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Let Israel be Iraq's guide
It's that astroturfing man again:
Formally involving Syria and Iran in decisions about Iraq's future seems the least inspired of all the ideas presented by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq study group, and ignores abundant evidence that these countries covet something far short of an enlightened Iraqi government amenable to western interests.
Rather, Iraq's nascent democracy should move into self-preservation mode and meet terrorism's challenge head on by applying the full array of policies Israel so successfully employs in countering the Palestinian intifada: no-nonsense treatment of terrorism suspects; hard-hitting consequences for convicted terrorists; and a willingness to greatly inconvenience neighbouring countries that involve themselves in its domestic affairs.
Iraq's elected leaders can yet keep their eyes on the prize - representative democracy - while vigorously denying terrorists a free hand to sow fear, discord and death in the streets.
RON GOODDEN, Atlanta
So why is he writing to the SCMP? What's the connection?
Posted by dave on 22 December 2006 at 10:28 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
English Editing Required
From Today's SCMP:
While in Happy Valley the other night I noticed a police road sign that read: "Do not across here". A few days before, Secretary for Home Affairs Patrick Ho Chi-ping became a laughing stock when he said in a published speech that "most people in Hong Kong live in buildings" and "we laid the seeds".
There is no excuse for such ridiculous mistakes. The government needs to show all English materials to a team of competent editors before they are published or posted as signs. There are quite a few of them employed with taxpayers' money in the Information Services Department.
FENG CHI-SHUN, Ho Man Tin
Unfortunately, what happens is that the good old Chinese concept of 'Face' intervenes in the editing process and screws things up. To say that a senior person can't write proper English would cause that senior person to lose face, and therefore nothing is done.
Posted by dave on 13 December 2006 at 12:26 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Make them pay
The government seems to be helpless in tackling the problem of the influx of mainland women coming to give birth in Hong Kong, overstretching our medical services and incurring bad debts for the Hospital Authority. I would therefore like to suggest some effective measures.
Out of respect for life, we cannot turn away mainlanders who really need to give birth here. However, the government should not allow these women to leave Hong Kong until they have settled their hospital bills. Since the Hospital Authority has a huge deficit, perhaps they could be forced to do chores, such as cleaning the floors. If they have no intention of paying, they should be jailed for several months - as a warning to other mainland women intent on abusing our medical services.
STEPHANIE YUEN, Mui Wo
Wow, put women who have just given birth into involuntary servitude or jail! This may be a new low for the SCMP letters page.
UPDATE: it reminds me a little of the following exchange (from Blackadder the Third):
Edmund: Well, according to `Who's Who', his interests include flogging servants, shooting poor people, and the extension of slavery to anyone who hasn't got a knighthood.
Prince George: Excellent! Sensible policies for a happier Britain!
So what can be done about this actually rather small problem? Deny residency to any child born here if neither of the parents are ordinarily resident or if the mother has clearly come to take advantage of getting residency for her child. It may not be easy to legislate, but insisting that some judicial review of the child's residency status is required if neither parent is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong or has a Hong Kong ID card should do it. That wouldn't interfere with most births, and would remove the reason that most of the mainland women who have their babies here do so.
The fact that there is a relatively small number of women who leave the SAR after giving birth without paying their bill is actually quite a small matter. The real issue is the growing number of youngsters on the China side who have Hong Kong residency and have the right to turn up and live off welfare payments/get public housing. Our welfare handout is small for a Hong Konger, but for a mainland Chinese it's a pretty substantial amount. (CSSA Standard Rates)
Posted by dave on 27 November 2006 at 13:08 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Joy to the World
From the unlinkable SCMP comes this gem on Saturday's letters page:
It is a rare day when news from the scientific world brings joy to the masses, but Wednesday was one such day. Your story "Deal sealed to build experimental reactor to harness nuclear fusion" (November 22) reported that seven of the world's leading nations plan to invest the equivalent of HK$99 billion to build a reactor which might provide "as much energy from a litre of seawater as from a litre of petrol or a kilo of coal".
Four hundred scientists will kick-start the project and, if successful, "fusion technology will be rolled out across the world".
That really is great news - practical fusion is something we as the human race should have developed back in the 1950's, just after the development of the H-Bomb (which uses much of the same principles).
The words of the old song Happy days are here again; The skies above are clear again shall, thankfully, sound a swansong for all scaremongering, doom-saying, tree-hugging environmentalists. No more shall they command time and space in our newspapers, magazines and cinemas and on our televisions. Their end is nigh.
Science will give us the freedom to enjoy all the fruits of our labours, including free rein to buy gas-guzzling 4x4s without guilt. The greenies can take comfort in cultivating - and selling the produce from - their vegetable patches on Lamma and Lantau (organic, naturally).
So here we have the knee-jerk reaction of the right-winger. Now that there is cheap electricity, apparently we can go on using fossil fuels as though they were infinite. We can ignore the damage to our environment and let Northern Europe have a climate like Siberia. Glaciers as far south as Kansas City? Apparently OK with J. Charleston.
The claims of the green movement that excessive production of greenhouse gasses and over use of fossil fuels are destructive to the planet are not based on some jealousy or luddite tendencies, but on the fact that these activities are destroying our planet. The well funded (by oil companies!) movement to decry these facts is suicidal and will lead to horrendous environmental disasters. The lockstep in which right-wingers march in complete agreement with these corporations is nothing more that the brainless adulation of aspiring fascists. They are as nothing to those whose jackboots they sniff after.
The reality is that Practical Fusion implies cheap electricity which implies a revival of the GM Electric Car (). Rapidly rising Oil costs imply the death of the infernal combustion engine. Rapidly decreasing electricity costs lead to a rise in public transport and electric vehicles. How's about all power for Hong Kong transport comes from a small fusion station on Lamma? All taxis are electric. No more diesel, no more coal based power. Clean skies on days when the wind isn't coming from the north...
Cheap power will allow us to maintain our lifestyles while reducing our output of greenhouse gases and our reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean that the climate of northern Eurpone won't become another Siberia as the Gulf Stream stops, the fish stocks in the world's oceans will halt and eventually reverse their current decline, and places like Australia might be viable to live in for another few years. I, for one, would miss the Great Barrier Reef, the Jungles of Indonesia and the low lying islands of Polynesia, even though I have never been to any of these. I would like to visit them someday, and I would like that my children, and their children, would also have that choice.
It will also allow countries like the US to cease relying on the Middle East for their energy, which will decrease the overall terrorist threat. Indeed, countries which are currently sources of terrorists, like Saudi Arabia — home of Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists — will be plunged into long needed revolution as the value of their fossil fuel resources diminish. (Always assuming that we can find a way to make cheap plastics, of course.) The oil curse, where nations with oil and few other resources turn into fascist dictatorships in pursuit of the almighty dollar, should be a thing of the past.
The irony is that, for a fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq, the world could have been nearly four years down this road already. If only the President of the USA wasn't completely beholden to oil companies...
J. CHARLESTON, Tai Hang
Twit.
Posted by dave on 26 November 2006 at 17:18 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Shifting the blame
How can Hong Kong promote safe cycling?
In his letter (Talkback, October 17) David Newbery states that the government was warned a year in advance of the potential hazards of allowing a large number of cyclists to race in a country park using both sides of a narrow road while not segregating the cyclists from normal traffic.
It appears therefore that the organisers and participants were fully aware of the potential danger to racers and other road users but decided to go ahead. They must accept responsibility for their actions and should not blame the government for the misfortune that befell one of them.
Colin, are you seriously saying that the death of a racing cyclist due to an illegal overtaking manouevre by a minibus was the fault of the *race* *organisers*?
Posted by dave on 20 October 2006 at 13:18 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
A Cunning Plan
What is the best way of tackling the influx of pregnant mainlanders?
The main reason mainlanders come to Hong Kong to give birth is for the residency that the baby will receive.
Therefore the most effective solution to this issue would be to end Hong Kong's status as a special administrative region, giving everyone a Chinese passport (since we are all Chinese anyway).
Then I'll bet no non-locals would come to Hong Kong to give birth.
Joseph Xie, Tin Hau
I do believe that this may be one of the stupidest letters I've seen in the SCMP.
To deal with what is at most a very small problem, we should destroy everything which makes Hong Kong more than just another city in China. We should get rid of the Rule of Law, our honest police force, our uncensored access to information, our simple tax regime, our status as a world city (no matter how tenuous it is) and just become Shenzen's southern suburb. A filthy, crime-ridden, corrupt cesspool with blocked news channels, justice for money and hideously deformed beggars on the streets.
We should not be able to trust the taxi drivers, and our kindergartens should be fortresses constantly in fear of being robbed. We should all have to leave some small amount of cash on the living room table, so the burglars will take that and not cut our throats.
Also, note Xie's racism in denying that non-Chinese can live in Hong Kong. It's a repeat of the "Sod Off Gweilo" message you hear from time to time, as some deluded idiot thinks that Hong Kong would have been exactly the same city if it had never left China.
From his name, Xie is obviously a mainlander living in Hong Kong. Why live here, Mr Xie? Why not live in one of those Mainland cities of which you think Hong Kong should be one? Why not live somewhere you can be arrested for no reason, or killed so that your organs can be sold?
Posted by dave on 30 September 2006 at 09:23 (GMT +08:00)
Categories: Rants, scmp_letters
Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
History Lessons
Strange choice?
Is it just me, or does anyone else find legislator "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung's attire somewhat ironic?
A T-shirt featuring revolutionary Che Guevara, whose main achievement in life (apart from being photogenic) was assisting the overthrow of a democratic government in Cuba to see it replaced by a single-party state.
SIMON LUDLOW, Discovery Bay
Perhaps you should learn some history, Mr. Ludlow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
(OK, you have to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt these days, thanks to the constant vandalism from partisan interests.)