Newspapers throughout Hong Kong are being bombarded by 'bleeding heart' advertisements from the Tobacco Institute ('Arrested. For opening an umbrella,' South China Morning Post, June 18) in a last ditch attempt to influence Legislative Council members prior to this week's Legco vote to strengthen existing tobacco laws. Scaremongering techniques, and misleading ones at that, will not work with our legislators. The Tobacco Institute claims that the proposed laws infringe Hong Kong's Bill of Rights. Yet the Government clearly stated before the Bills Committee that, based on legal opinion, they do not. The institute sat in on the Bills Committee hearings, so can best be described as suffering from selective deafness. The industry is not even consistent with the figures it floats about. The Coopers & Lybrand report, commissioned by the 4As, states that about 1,000 small vendors on a minimum margin could lose up to 10 per cent of their total income, and an amount of $1,000 per month was suggested (even here, note the speculative nature of these figures). Yet in the Bills Committee this figure had suddenly jumped to HK$6,000-$7,000 per month. These wild statements hardly inspire confidence about the credibility of economic forecasts coming from the tobacco industry and its supporters. The truth is that tobacco control measures are good for Hong Kong's economy. Independent economists confirm that a ban on cigarette advertising is not likely to reduce either the total amount of money spent on advertising, or the total number of people employed in advertising or promotion. As if to prove the point, advertising expenditure is increasing in neighbouring countries with comprehensive bans on tobacco promotion (for example, Singapore, Thailand, Australia). In the opinion of the independent economists, the industry report demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of economics to the extent that its report 'should not form the basis of any public policy decision making'. And, by the way, where is the institute's sympathy for the thousands who lose their jobs because of smoking-related illness and the 4,600 people who are killed by tobacco every year in Hong Kong? The institute never gives a word of comfort or financial support to them or their bereaved families. Public opinion surveys conducted by the University of Hong Kong show clear public support for further restrictions on tobacco advertising and for more no-smoking areas (noting that 85 per cent of the population are non-smokers). We have heard it all before. All these same arguments being trotted out by the tobacco industry in Hong Kong today were presented over 20 years ago prior to the total ban on tobacco advertising in Norway. Yet Gudmund Hernes, the current Norwegian Minister of Health, wrote last week to Hong Kong: 'There is no doubt that the Norwegian advertising ban has had a clear and substantial positive influence both on total tobacco consumption in general, and smoking rates among school- children in particular.' Other leading health authorities recently noted that 'the pessimistic and tragic events forecast by the tobacco industry (for example, effects on employment) have not occurred'. Hong Kong legislators are faced with the opportunity to make a responsible decision this week - in line with world trends and in keeping with our commitment to the World Health Organisation's call for 'An advertising-free region by the year 2000' - a decision in the best interests of public health, children, and the economy. JUDITH MACKAY Director, Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control
