Fly-fishing requires the study of local entomology in order to choose the correct fly to match the insects that fish are preying on; this is why it is a fascinating sport. Extending the season to May 31 would allow fly-fishermen to exploit the insect hatches of early summer. I also suggest that, like some other fly-fishing venues, the extended season operate on a catch-and-release basis.

I imagine that there are many competent fly-fishers (I am not) from the Americas and Europe who would dearly love to pursue their sport but have little idea where and how to do so in Hong Kong. Although most Hong Kong reservoir fish seem to be of the various carp species, according to the licence small print, some reservoirs are inhabited by black bass, a much sought-after game fish. If the reservoirs were run as properly managed fisheries then perhaps they could be marketed by Hong Kong to fishermen in general and fly-fishermen in particular.

Naturally, the department would need a larger budget to cope with the added 'burden' of fisheries management, but perhaps this could be covered by higher-priced fishing licences or higher costs for an extended season ticket, or 'tourist tickets' for visitors. Revenues could also be raised by, as Mr Greene suggests, having sailing and kayaking facilities, which would need to be both paid for and highly regulated.

MARK RANSON, Sai Kung

Dynamic Hong Kong

I refer to Adrianne and Christopher Rush's letter headlined 'Hong Kong declining' (February 18).

What complete rubbish! Hong Kong remains one of Asia's most dynamic cities. Hong Kong people retain their vitality for getting things done. Hong Kong's transport system remains the envy of virtually any world-class city. Its skyline is dominated by some of the world's most impressive buildings. Hong Kong's political relationship with the mainland is far from being 'stymied', and 'insignificant' news from the mainland is actually very relevant for a city that is a part of China!

Hong Kong will continue to go from strength to strength, that is the nature of its people, to move forward. Adversity, arguments, pollution, disaster - Hong Kong weathers all storms and survives. For those of us who live here, we are proud to be part of Hong Kong.

MARK PEAKER, Chung Hom Kok

Gay law a slippery slope

I admire Amnesty International's contribution to the human rights movement, but its understanding of human rights is not infallible.

Concerning its pro-gay position - that to be protected by a specific anti-discrimination law (Sodo) is a matter of human rights - I beg to disagree. The logic is simple. If something is a human right, then every type of person should have it. But not every type of person (for example, fat or ugly people) is protected by a specific anti-discrimination law. So it follows that such a law offers special protection.

Liz Whitelam of Amnesty International Hong Kong in 'Critics of gays protected' (February 12) tried to de-emphasise the point I made: 'protection' by means of Sodo in reality means coercion of all those who are judged to be 'discriminating' against homosexuals. She then accused me of inaccurately associating anti-discrimination legislation with restrictions on freedom of speech. In my first letter, I had written (but it was cut out), 'From the western experience, 'discrimination' on the basis of sexual orientation can include free speech ... the freedom to choose how to use one's property, and so on'. The case of the Swedish pastor, entirely accurate, illustrates this point. I can cite many other examples. In France, a law has just been passed to criminalise anti-gay speech, with similar steps in Canada and the US.

Anti-discrimination law comes in many forms, some more restricted and some more extended. But once the idea is enshrined in law, the scope of 'sexual orientation discrimination' tends to expand. This is the lesson we can learn from the history of countries that have Sodo laws. The Swedish case is extreme, but it is also extremely revealing. Can anyone guarantee that once Sodo in its milder form has been passed, it will not lead Hong Kong down the slippery slope?

Amnesty International may have a more restricted definition of discrimination, but can it speak for all pro-gay groups? I can testify from my own experience that many pro-gay groups view anti-gay speech as discrimination. The Society for Truth and Light once distributed a leaflet listing medical facts about the mainstream homosexual lifestyle. The gay community reacted furiously, and many said they hoped they could invoke an anti-discrimination law to penalise the society.

KAI-MAN KWAN, department of religion and philosophy, Baptist University

'97: why officials stayed

Professor Tony Latter, in his column 'Too privileged to be grateful' (February 17), asserts that 'officials were able to insinuate their own interests ... into the drafting of the Basic Law' and 'officials who were busy extolling the virtues of a free-market economy were ... writing laws to insulate themselves from it'.

My recollection is that the drafting was done by the Basic Law Drafting Committee, which did not include any officials, and that the Basic Law was approved by Beijing.

A wide range of interests felt threatened in the late 1980s and early 1990s in view of the coming transfer of sovereignty. Many of these concerns were addressed by articles in the Basic Law. Professor Latter may recall that the emigration from Hong Kong of many civil servants (encouraged, for example, by offers of employment and passports from Singapore) created fears that sufficient crucial senior-level government officials would not remain in Hong Kong after 1997. The inclusion of the Basic Law protection for civil service terms and conditions of service was a decisive, and dare I say successful, measure to ensure Hong Kong's future stability.

Professor Latter also says that 'Everyone else in Hong Kong has been left to cope with market forces.' I would welcome his analysis of academic pay adjustments since 1997.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Holocaust sympathies

Colin Campbell's letter 'Holocaust questions' (February 16), was indeed interesting and stimulating. It is rather unfortunate therefore that he seems to want to turn the Holocaust issue into a discussion of whether 'Jews' are deserving of sympathy.

To which 'Jews' is he referring? Is he suggesting that only Jews who spoke up at the time deserve sympathy? What about those who did not speak up and were murdered in Europe and those few who survived? Is speaking up against oppression a requirement before sympathy is deserved? While I thank Mr Campbell for his efforts to stop Hitler and end the suffering of the Jews (I note no mention of gypsies or the other minorities targeted by the Nazis), please do not concern yourself about sympathy for the Jews.

By all means question Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Many Israelis and diasporan Jews would ask many of the same questions. However, all those who died or suffered during the war deserve our sympathy, Jews, non-Jews, gypsies and yes, even Londoners who died during the Blitz, even if their voices of protest had not been heard.

All Jews, gypsies and the many minorities who were the subject of attempted genocide before and during the second world war and their survivors deserve your sympathy and respect. They do not demand it and if you think they may have forfeited their rights to it, so be it.

KEITH J. ODERBERG, Central

Syrian puzzle

I note that the US has withdrawn its ambassador to Syria. Yet, as in 'Bush joins the chorus demanding Syrian withdrawal' (February 18), it does not accuse the Syrians of the assassination of ex-prime minister Rafik Hariri, although it does accuse them of failure of intelligence and destabilising Lebanon with the presence of their troops. Am I missing something?

JOHN BRUCE, Shau Kei Wan