JACK MUIR, Lamma

RTHK funding puzzle

The public broadcasting review panel's recommendation that RTHK continue to receive 100 per cent funding from the government for three years, tapering off to 80 per cent within 10 years, defies logic ('Broadcast panel chief defends its proposals', September 28).

Surely if a future independent public broadcaster deserves government funding, it should be 100 per cent funded ad infinitum? Otherwise, it should not be funded by the government at all. There is no logic for something in between.

But why, in the first place, must we have a public broadcaster in the form of RTHK when there seems to be no need for a public print media? If there is no need for RTHK, it should be disbanded. RTHK staff should not feel hard done by - the government has generous tried-and-tested arrangements for laying off staff. Whatever they do for their own reasons in Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan and so on, there is no need for us to be copycats.

PETER LOK, Heng Fa Chuen

Too young for Mozart

Last Saturday, I went to see The Marriage of Figaro at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre. There were a boy of about 10 sitting next to me and a girl of approximately six behind me. As soon as the opera began, the children started asking their mothers what was going on. I had to ask the boy to stop talking. I looked back at the girl, but her mother was able to keep her quiet for only a couple of minutes.

People like to bring their children to Mozart concerts these days in the belief that they provide intellectual stimulus - the so-called Mozart effect. However, this is a total nuisance for other theatre goers. The children get so bored they start tapping their feet (while their parents answer mobile phones!).

The Leisure and Cultural Services Department should consider raising the minimum age limit for admissions.

LAI TSZ-CHEONG, Ngau Tau Kok

Savaged by a dead sheep

Roy Tang's letters-page assault on Christine Loh Kung-wai reminded me of British Labour politician Denis Healey's description of such treatment by Tory minister Geoffrey Howe as 'like being savaged by a dead sheep' ('Simply not so simple', September 28).

From pedantry to obfuscation, Mr Tang used the usual government debating tools. As a consultant, I should be gladdened at the thought of yet another consultancy study being launched by the government; as a father of two small and vulnerable children, I am depressed and unsurprised by this familiar display of fence-sitting by our leaders on the most crucial issue facing Hong Kong's health and future prosperity. One closing thought: will the government include the additional health-care costs of a further 18-month delay in its study?

P. JEREMY NEWTON, Happy Valley

Pedestrians deserve better

T.F. Leung, writing on behalf of the transport commissioner, uses selective statistics to mislead the public into believing the Transport Department has worked wonders in improving pedestrian safety over the past 30 years ('The road to safety', September 27).

He might just as well have compared figures for road accidents involving injury for the years 1986 and 1987, when they rose 10 per cent to 16,169 casualties, or for 2000 (19,422 injured) and 2001 (20,318), an increase of nearly 5 per cent. My point here is that statistics can be used to represent anything.

The truth is that the South China Morning Post's editorial 'Put pedestrians and their safety first' (September 19) was spot on, and Mr Leung's letter is an attempt to obscure the way the government has progressively deprived pedestrians of their rights.

The department's record is appalling. Pavements on major shopping streets have been narrowed. Traffic-light pedestrian phases have been reduced so that the infirm can no longer cross roads safely. Crossings have been removed and pedestrians forced to walk unreasonable distances and climb tortuous steps to bridges or tunnels. Unnecessary railings have been installed to stop pedestrians crossing at convenient locations (further narrowing pavements). Pedestrians have been forced to cross road junctions in multiple sections and stand in enclosures breathing exhaust fumes. Major shopping streets have not been turned into pedestrian precincts. Traffic speeds have not been curbed on busy downtown streets. The police have not enforced safe driving techniques. No decisive action has been taken to reduce traffic congestion. Sensible policy introduced in the 1970s and 1980s to discourage private car ownership has been abandoned...

The list of failures is endless. The only consideration the commissioner affords is keeping motorists and the transport industry happy by giving their interests absolute priority over those of pedestrians.

The situation must change. Most people in Hong Kong do not own cars, and we expect - and deserve - a better deal.

P.A. CRUSH, Sha Tin

Cars are an easy target

Shortly after reading Robert Savidge's letter proposing that private vehicles be banned in favour of taxis and buses ('Banish private cars', September 27), I found myself driving along Conduit Road towards Central in my hybrid car.

I was held up by minibuses and taxis picking up and discharging passengers and thus had time to observe the traffic going in the opposite direction. At one point I counted 21 taxis nose to tail, followed by one private car and four more taxis.

I gave up counting after that, and instead wondered what it would be like if the private car was eliminated and the number of taxis increased.

Cars are an easy target for the have-nots, but they tend to produce far less pollution than some would have us believe. Many are on the roads only for short periods, whereas taxis, buses and commercial vehicles run day and night. The generation of electricity needed to power trains and cool public transport must surely be a major contributor to greenhouse emissions.

And how does the pollution attributable to cars compare with that caused by aircraft?

We all want cleaner air but let us be realistic and not vent our spite on those fortunate enough to own cars. It would be better to persuade motorists to switch to hybrid vehicles.

COLIN CAMPBELL, Mid-Levels

Charity will buy a pardon

Ousted billionaire prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand, presently unemployed, has told the media he will now devote his time to charity work. If he does so, he will qualify to join the league of charitable billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Li Ka-shing.

Mr Thaksin, if you donate 50 per cent of your wealth to charities in Thailand, the Thai king will pardon your transgressions and the public will welcome you back with respect. Take action now or never.

K.M. NASIR, Mid-Levels

Treatment for monsters

I am at a loss as to how the United States is losing the moral ground through its treatment of terrorists, as Philip Kennedy suggests in his letter 'Moral ground lost' (September 29).

It is comforting to know that people like Mr Kennedy are looking out for those who care nothing for human rights or life.

I am sure that Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered in Pakistan on the instructions of jailed terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was afforded all the rights and protection to which he was entitled under the Geneva Conventions. That might explain why his beheading was videotaped and his body was cut up into pieces, to the delight of Muslim extremists worldwide.

If you are dealing with a monster, it is my belief that you should treat him as one. We already provide far greater rights to Muslim extremists captured in the 'war on terror' than they deserve.

CRAIG GIBSON, Sha Tin