Anything that benefits one race over another, as this bill is trying to do, is - by definition - racist. The proposed law is obviously aimed at US, European and perhaps Japanese companies that want to bring in their own people and have traditionally offered them certain benefits to make the overseas posting attractive.

The assumption behind this law is that companies would rather pay more to someone of their own 'race' or nationality than to an equally qualified local.

This is, on its face, a ridiculous assumption. How does it benefit a company to pay more to someone who is their own race or nationality if they can get the same job done by a local for less?

The people behind this bill are racist in their assumptions. They assume that western companies would rather hire a 'white' person and Japanese companies a Japanese than a local, no matter what the cost.

What happened to the free market here in business-friendly Hong Kong? I have tried to work out the implications of what the government is trying to do with this so-called 'anti-racism bill'. It certainly is not to wipe out racism, as anyone with dark skin who has tried to rent a flat will attest.

Nor does the government seem interested in alleviating the prejudice and racism the city's 225,000 domestic helpers face every day.

Instead, it is focusing on the few hundred expats who have benefits that differ from those given to local hires.

So what is the government really trying to do here: lower everyone's compensation? Protect locals who are overwhelmingly Chinese from competing with foreigners for professional positions? Put downward pressure on rents in places like Repulse Bay, Tai Tam and the upper Mid-Levels? Drive out the international schools? Or put a spin on a bad law by labelling it 'anti-racist'?

It certainly is not doing anything about racism. My wife and I are US citizens and permanent residents. Both of us, when we were employed, have always worked here on local terms. Quite frankly, this gave us an advantage over expats who needed an 'expat package'. As anyone in human resources will tell you, the 'expat package' is going the way of the dodo bird, whether the government passes the bill in question or not.

If the government is really interested in promoting racial harmony, it should attack the overt racism that so many people experience every day.

Name and address supplied

On other matters...

Having read David Horne's Talkback letter yesterday on minibus accidents, I think he is a gentleman, based on the way he described the accident he experienced.

Had it been me, I think I would have assaulted the minivan driver and got thrown in jail (assuming I was not injured in the accident, of course).

I do agree with David that local public transport is to be admired and cherished. Unfortunately, it is true that if you like to walk on the wild side, then all you have to do is catch a minibus.

I wake up in the morning, say a little prayer, kiss my kids and convince my wife that the company's insurance will cover mortal accidents. Then I catch the minibus from Stanley to Causeway Bay and, if my prayers have been heard, there will be safety belts on board and the driver will be in a good mood.

Of course, it is very reassuring to know that there is a speed monitor on board (with a large LED display) that beeps when the minibus exceeds 70km/h (the beep is to wake passengers up from their nap so they do not miss their stop).

Then there is a sign that says 'Report Speeding - Ring Tel No...' You know in reality it is not the speed that matters on this route, but simply the reckless attitude some drivers have.

On our minibus route, we have the Octopus system, but have you noticed the driver looking for the fare price sign and then attempting to hang it on the windscreen several times as we travel towards our destination?

While he fiddles, he increases the chance of an accident. Surely in hi-tech Hong Kong, one would have thought this could easily be automated by turning the speed monitor display to face outside and link it to the Octopus collection display.

C.K. Fong, Tai Tam

It is very easy to make good 'ordinary' coffee. Why, then, are most catering establishments, including Starbucks and Pacific Coffee, unwilling to do so?

By 'ordinary' I mean coffee other than espresso, cappuccino, etc., which have a bitter flavour.

Unfortunately, all coffee in most establishments is made in machines of a type that was originally designed to produce espresso or cappuccino, and therefore (I suspect) uses water that is too hot. This is what gives coffee that bitter flavour.

It is possible that some of these machines are designed to also make ordinary coffee, but are wrongly adjusted.

But this is hard to believe, as one would expect - over the years - to find the occasional one properly adjusted, even if only by accident.

A cafetiere, or (cheaper still) some filters with a simple conical holder, and a supply of hot (not boiling) water would be much cheaper than the machines currently favoured. Please, start serving decent, 'ordinary' coffee.

Peter Robertson, Sai Kung