In urging Hong Kong to legislate against racism, Mr Harris referred to Britain's '40 years' experience of using law' to fight racism. Is the British model worthy of emulation? Consider race riots in Brixton (1990s), Bradford (2001), and Birmingham (2005).

Laws may suppress, but cannot eliminate, racism. But every new law will provide business opportunities to lawyers, Hong Kong's most British-dependent profession. While some lawyers will forage in the slums, other lawyers will be looking for loopholes to protect entrenched interests.

Race laws that regulate social relations, like tax laws that impose income redistribution, are subject to cost-benefit appraisal in a domestic context.

That is why liberal democracies, such as France and Switzerland, accept the international anti-racism convention, with reservations, to preserve their national values. Unfortunately, post-colonial Hong Kong has been misled to presume the pretentious title of 'Asia's world city', which resembles a nickname for an Asian city aping the British. Local values are overwhelmed by British ideals.

It is futile to enact fair laws if they are applied unfairly. The judiciary will set standards when it decides racial relations cases, but its record of cultural impartiality is dubious. An inordinate proportion of senior judicial appointments go to ethnics of British origin who are used to special privileges of the colonial era. Shortly after the Special Administrative Region's establishment, when the entire region reeled from deflation and Sars pandemics and the community as a whole willingly accepted income reductions, the judiciary singularly refused to show empathy - on the pretext of judicial independence.

In most liberal democracies, judicial independence does not cover salary protection during economic recession.

Given Hong Kong's lingering colonial tradition, a race law would most likely make the underprivileged majority share resources with underprivileged minorities, while those minorities that have traditionally enjoyed the privileges of colonialism - even during the post-colonial period - would continue to do so.

Agnes Ming Yuen, Central

China's political torch relay

Your editorial ('Politics has no place at the Olympics', April 1) expresses the utopian ideal that politics and sport should not be mixed and 'that governments and activists need to keep this firmly in mind' during the Olympic torch relay. However, China has already politicised the torch relay. The torch does not need to go to the summit of Mount Everest, yet that is what China intends to do, to show off its domination of Tibet.

Because it is worried about protesters, it has used its political might to coerce Nepal into cancelling this spring's Everest expeditions. It is more than a little bit ironic that sport is being sacrificed for political show. There are only two, brief climbing seasons in the year and one of them has been completely wiped out at the behest of China.

Many sportsmen have been denied a once-in-a-lifetime chance to achieve their dreams.

Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world, and thousands of people rely on the money that the Everest expeditions bring in every year to eke out a living. As long as China uses the Olympics and the torch relay for its political ends, it should not be surprised that its rivals do the same.

Keith Noyes, Sai Kung

Questioning death toll

Peter Sherwood in his letter ('Tibetans' views are clear', April 1), said I supported 'China's every move'.

In fact, I criticised Beijing for its less than transparent handling of the situation.

I wonder if Mr Sherwood has been to Tibet, or is he just accepting what he reads in mainstream western media? I suspect the latter to be the case.

Mr Sherwood claimed that since 1950 around 1.2 million Tibetans had been killed and 'almost 6,000 shrines and monasteries destroyed'.

Where does this information come from and is there any actual evidence to back up such vague figures?

Tony Chan, Tsim Sha Tsui

Open spaces not a commodity

I agree with your editorial ('Open-space policy must make the public No 1', March 29).

The government's policy on open spaces is badly in need of a total re-examination.

It is not only the abuse by developers under the deed of dedication (on-going management) that requires rectification.

Officials must also look at the policy principles to be adopted at the time of creating an open space under the planning and land transaction processes.

The fact that pressure had to be brought to bear on the Development Bureau to release information - together with the fact that Civic Party legislators had to ask the secretary for justice to get involved ('Calls for minister to act over open spaces', March 31) - is surely an indication of the mindset of indifference that prevails in government departments on the subject of protecting the rights of the public.

One single department should be charged with the duty of protecting the public's rights in open spaces.

Logically this should be the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, which should be strengthened by a formal public policy on open spaces, approved by the Executive Council.

The Planning and Lands Branch has shown too much eagerness to pander to the ambitions of developers at the planning and land transaction stages.

It has sold off existing open spaces, or negotiated favourable terms that permit the developers to use open space sites as a device to increase the size of their buildings.

Public open spaces are a recognised entity available to the public.

They are provided to reduce and space out the intensity of development in any particular locality.

They are not a trading commodity for raising public revenue through the lands and planning systems.

Fan Waugh Fu, Mid-Levels

A no-go area for security guards

It seems to me that an important argument has been ignored in the discussion about public open spaces.

Since we are talking about 'public space', no security guards can have any authority over that area.

If they are hired by the private companies owning the real estate, they can only exercise their job on the 'private spaces 'owned by that company.

Public space falls under the jurisdiction of the police or other appointed public employees, but certainly not security guards.

So, I would suggest that each individual who is approached by security guards in a public space should call the police and file a harassment complaint.

Robert Maes, Central