PROFESSOR Mackay's letter (South China Morning Post, October 2) is misleading. It only tells half the story. Quite how the Government's proposed legislation regarding tobacco can be called 'extremely modest', defies logic. The Government is proposing to restrict the visibility of any tobacco product trademark - it will be restricted to one pack face at retail level. Any other advertising or trademark use, be it in the form of advertising, sponsorship, direct mail, or indeed worn on clothing, will be illegal. If the total removal of all forms of commercial communication in relation to tobacco products is considered 'extremely modest', then one can only wonder at what Professor Mackay considers to be a suitable control. In naming the 20 countries with total or near-total bans, she omits to mention that the incidence of smoking in these countries is either the same as before the ban was introduced or indeed has increased. She also stresses that these countries represent the democracies, whilst again omitting that the world's oldest and greatest democracies of the UK and the US do not support such bans, and indeed the European Union as a whole has also resisted implementing such action. Possibly because in all these cases individual freedom of expression is protected by either a Bill of Rights or similar legislation. Singapore is presently the most restrictive market in Asia in relation to tobacco advertising (although the Hong Kong proposals match it). However, it has recently been shown in Singapore that smoking incidence amongst the young in particular, has increased quite dramatically notwithstanding the ban on advertising. The truth is, advertising bans do not reduce consumption. This statement is not merely the words of the tobacco industry. The justification for an advertising ban has been recently considered by the Canadian Supreme Court. The court confirmed the findings of the trial judge that notwithstanding the extensive submissions of the Canadian Government on this point, 'there was no direct evidence of a scientific nature showing a causal link between advertising bans and decrease in tobacco consumption'. Which leads us to the major point of my letter with regard to the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. In reaching its decision, that a tobacco advertising ban was unconstitutional, the Canadian Supreme Court took into consideration all the points made by Professor Mackay. The relevant law in Canada and Hong Kong is very similar. The freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds is protected. This freedom may only be restricted to the extent necessary to achieve specified objectives, such as public health. The Canadian Supreme Court found that the advertising ban was not shown by the Government to be necessary, in the sense of being proportionate and rationally connected to the objective of improving public health. Put quite simply, it has now been established in a court of law that there is no scientific evidence available that advertising bans will be effective in reducing tobacco consumption, and that a ban on all forms of advertising will contravene the Bill of Rights. Whatever Professor Mackay cares to believe, the facts can no longer be in question. To state that the tobacco industry must not be allowed to claim the freedom argument demonstrates an unbecoming and scant disregard for the Bill of Rights and personal freedom. The future of Hong Kong demands that we uphold the principles of freedom as protected by the Bill of Rights. Failure to do so, by knowingly ignoring the scientific facts and legal principles, simply because you do not like smoking, would be irresponsible. Whether it is a basic freedom to allow young people to grow up free of commercial pressures to smoke is a debatable point. Freedom means personal choice. No matter how much I would hate my children to make what I consider wrong decisions in life, I would not want them to grow up in a society that didn't allow adults of all ages, from 18 to 108, the freedom and trust to make those decisions themselves. R. J. FLETCHER Chairman Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong
