Advertisement
Advertisement

Land-sales reform might do away with need for GST

Much play has been made in the media and by members of the legislative and executive councils about the 'need' to widen the tax base to avoid alleged long-term structural deficits.

It has been consistently observed that Hong Kong tax revenues rely too heavily on the narrow base of the property, property development and construction industries, and that - on this basis - the introduction of a goods and services tax (GST) or value-added-tax system is justified.

This seems self-serving in the extreme.

In Hong Kong, all revenue from government land sales is fed directly into a designated 'capital works reserve fund', which may then only be spent by the government on funding construction infrastructure projects. The result is that the very companies which pay the land premiums have this 'tax' returned directly only to themselves, in the form of large-scale construction contracts.

The few companies in Hong Kong which benefit most directly from this constraint have a large say in the functional constituencies in the Legislative Council, the body which created this constraint on government spending in the first place.

If this artificial constraint on official spending were removed, then the government could spend its tax revenue on a wider range of industries, instead of on construction companies engaged in needless and counterproductive overbuilding.

This would then widen the industrial base in Hong Kong, which would, in turn, widen the government's tax base. Perhaps then the 'need' for a GST would become moot. Indeed, the government's alleged structural deficit could be examined more realistically.

But until vested interests in Legco can be weaned from the current deleterious financial arrangement, Hong Kong will be at the mercy of the functional constituencies. Right now, it simply looks as if the mooted GST is 'needed' in order to feed the commercial dependency of very narrow interests.

QUENTIN HERON, Sai Kung

Democracy versus tax

Based on the principle of 'no taxation without representation', since those who pay salaries tax - just like those who do not - have no so-called deserved right to direct elections and universal suffrage, maybe the government should abolish this tax.

SUSAN CHAN, Wan Chai

Misplaced air taxi

I'm gobsmacked. In the most critical period yet in looming energy and pollution crises (and they are real crises with everlasting implications, rather than a small blip in the rather cosy standard of living we have), we have such projects praised by the South China Morning Post as apparently reducing air pollution ('Tycoon bets on British firm's air taxi', February 27).

The article quotes the air taxi company's chief executive as saying: 'Every time you see this aircraft in the air, it means there will be seven fewer cars on the road.'

How will this aircraft reduce pollution? If Charles Ming Ka-fook drives a hydrogen hybrid car, then I could see his point of view. But this isn't likely.

When will we wake up and see the real opportunity for evolving into a sustainable culture, with the living habits that go hand-in-hand?

JAMES BRYCE, Central

No clash of civilisations

We are indeed all one. In 'Clashing civilisations' (February 25), two academics from the University of Hong Kong ask whether Samuel Huntington may be right after all about the clash of western civilisation with others, most seriously Muslims, and the Chinese.

To begin with, may I respectfully remind Wang Liang and Erin Johnson that there is only one civilisation, all of mankind, so we have to wonder which world Huntington lives in. Christians are not clashing with Muslims, and neither are the Americans or the Europeans clashing with Muslims and the Chinese.

If you make an extra effort to read between the lines, you will realise that powerful groups with vested political interests, media conglomerates with hypocritical editorial policies, militant cells with perverted religious ideologies and disillusioned minorities - who have historically been ignored - are actually clashing with each other. The decision of the Danish and European dailies to publish those insensitive cartoons, by abusing press freedom, does not mean that all Europeans are against Muslims.

In the same way, some Muslims attacking European embassies or boycotting Danish products should not be interpreted as meaning that Muslims the world over are anti-western. To naively assume that this is the case is to fall into the traps of the four aforementioned groups.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Fast-food waste

While green groups are focusing on the plastic-bag issue, there is another area in which waste could be dramatically reduced that appears to have slipped under the radar.

This is the tonnes of unnecessary waste dumped daily by both Chinese and western fast-food outlets.

Every tray has on it a superfluous paper mat. Utensils are often throwaway and come in a plastic bag. Condiments are served in throwaway containers. Drinks come in disposable cups complete with the ubiquitous Starbucks-style plastic lid, more suited to children under two than to adults. Plastic coffee stirrers abound. Multiple tissues are given to customers.

Why do diners not complain about this waste, and put pressure on the chains, such as Maxims, Cafe de Coral, Fairwoods, McDonald's and KFC, to change their ways?

Hygiene is usually the excuse given for this abundance of waste, but we are now well into the 21st century and there are products on the market, such as sterile utensil dispensers, that could be used.

Spitting masticated food onto trays should no longer be accepted in a 'world city'. Tissues should be rationed and coffee stirrers made of reusable material.

Unfortunately, most Hong Kong residents have no genuine desire to reduce waste. Even members of green groups think that it is quite acceptable to order in outlets that provide only disposable containers.

When will Hong Kong people accept that improving the environment is their responsibility, and that instead of expecting the government to act, they should demand that the services they use are environmentally friendly.

CANDY TAM, Wan Chai

Don't badmouth host

A.L. Nanik's whingeing and moaning about the mainland have come full circle with Thomas Kwok's succinct question: 'Why did he choose to stay here in the first place?' ('Progress in democracy', February 23).

I believe I posed a similar challenge to Mr Nanik on the late Ralph Pixton's Open Line programme on RTHK before the handover - that is, for him to leave Hong Kong and let those of us who were gladly able to accept the changeover of sovereignty get on with it.

I ask again, 10 years later, that if democracy is all-consuming to him, why does he not return to our homeland of India, the largest democracy in the world, where - gosh - there is so much democracy that our ignorant peasants almost handed us over to an Italian.

The answer to that, I suspect, is that Mr Nanik came to Hong Kong, and remains here, for the same reason that many others do: money. As he is still here, and presumably prospering, can he accept that the game is up and stop badmouthing his host country and government?

MEENA KRISHNAN, Central

Propaganda war

US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld in 'A battle for public opinion' (February 24) writes that the United States and other western democracies are losing the propaganda war through failing to control the media. He says: 'We are fighting a war in which the survival of our way of life is at stake.'

I am insulted at any suggestion that my way of life - or, indeed, that of the western democracies - is dependant on the US-led war on Iraq, with the destruction of its villages, towns and cities, and the deaths of many thousands of its people.

Mr Rumsfeld writes that 'the Muslim public's view of the west is poisoned by the violent extremists' media relations committees' publishing of false allegations'. He says that the battle shall be won or lost in the court of global public opinion. The advantage, he claims, is with the western democracies, as 'truth is on our side and ultimately truth wins out'.

The first casualty of the propaganda war was truth, with the allegations of Mr Rumsfeld and his boss, President George W. Bush, about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Mr Rumsfeld would do well to ponder the words from the Good Book - as you sow, so shall you reap.

J. CHARLESTON, Tai Hang

Post