According to the article, two brands of beauty face masks were found to have excessive levels of potentially noxious bacteria. One of them even exceeded the standard by 3,300 times. The results have thoroughly justified the significance of standardising cosmetics.

Producers cannot fully prevent the excess ingredients contained in their products. If Hong Kong does not set a certain standard for cosmetics, similar cases of discovering excessive germs will occur, like in China. Customers will never purchase our products due to the risk of skin allergy. Moreover, I don't think Hong Kong can pay for the prodigious failure of skin-beauty investments.

Therefore, standards should be introduced for cosmetics in Hong Kong. It could guarantee the safety of our customers as well.

Hilary Wong, Shau Kei Wan

On other matters...

A motion was carried in a recent Sai Kung District Council meeting to have the vehicle entry control gate at Pak Tam Chung removed. I am writing to express opposition to this motion and to raise awareness within the government that this may yet be another attempt by local developers to build more properties on parkland, which is clearly prohibited under the Country Park Ordinance.

The gate was put in Pak Tam Chung to prevent too many vehicles from entering Sai Kung Country Park. The roads inside the gate were never designed to accommodate a high traffic volume. They were first built to facilitate the construction of High Island Reservoir. To abolish gate control in Pak Tam Chung would be disastrous for the following reasons:

All roads inside the gate are single-lane roads. Furthermore, there are very few public parking facilities in this part of the park. If traffic into the park is not controlled, illegal parking on the side of the road will undoubtedly skyrocket.

Lifting gate control will encourage more construction (legal and illegal) and construction debris, which is usually dumped at the nearest corner when no one is watching - a normal practice here.

The coastline of the park is already used for the trafficking of endangered species, drugs and illegal immigrants. Uncontrolled vehicle access in and out of the park will surely encourage more such illegal activities. This will mean a need to increase police patrolling of the park, which covers an area of 4,500 hectares.

The daily amount of rubbish left in various camping and picnic areas in Sai Kung (outside the control gate) is something I need not elaborate on. I am sure the same will happen inside the gate once control is lifted, because history tells us more vehicles means more people and more rubbish. Does the government really want to spend more to clean up an extra 4,500 hectares?

Some people tried to argue that the area inside the gate is insufficiently serviced by transport facilities. The fact of the matter is that the park is, and has been for a long time, serviced quite adequately by various public transport companies, which run extra bus shifts at the weekends so people from other parts of the territory can come and enjoy this beautiful area.

The park is one of the very few left in Hong Kong where one can go and enjoy a day's outing in the country without having to constantly witness bumper-to-bumper traffic. Here, one can still breathe fresh, clean air - something not easily done in other parts of Hong Kong. There are still hundreds of species of plants and animals thriving in the park. It is a treasure for all of us to enjoy. However, we must all work hard to preserve it in its most beautiful and natural form. We must do so, not only for our benefit but for our children too.

Thomas H. Hou, Sai Kung

We refer to a letter published in Talkback on December 10, which said the 'EMB's workplace English programme' has 'an 80 per cent rebate'. The author may have mixed up the Workplace English Campaign and the Continuing Education Fund, both launched by the government. We would like to clarify the following points:

1. The Workplace English Campaign (WEC) was launched in 2000 to heighten public awareness of the importance of workplace English and raise the standard of English among the workforce. It is a Language Fund project steered by the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (Scolar), which advises the government on language education issues and on the use of the Language Fund.

2. The Campaign has a Funding Scheme for Workplace English Training. This subsidises local employees who need to use English in the workplace to receive training to attain the relevant Hong Kong Workplace English Benchmarks (HKWEB) of their job type through any of the international business English examinations specified by the Campaign. With effect from January 2005, the scheme focuses on supporting the provision of in-house tailor-made English training commissioned by employers for their employees. Funding is given to meet 50 per cent of the employees' English training costs and examination fees (not 80 per cent as mentioned in the article), subject to a maximum of $3,000 per person.

3. To ensure the quality of the in-house tailor-made English training seeking subsidies from the Funding Scheme, the Office of WEC requires the applicants (i.e. the employers) to submit a copy of the course description, which sets out how the course is designed specially to meet the needs of their employees, prior to the application. The employees taking the training are also required to attain the relevant HKWEB of their job type upon completion of the course before reimbursements will be granted.

As the Funding Scheme receives hundreds of applications each year, it will be much appreciated if you could post a clarification in your newspaper on the above funding arrangement and the application and reimbursement requirements, to avoid any misunderstanding.

Lily Tsui, Office of the Workplace English Campaign, Education and Manpower Bureau