I refer to 'Does Hong Kong still need a superjail?' (South China Morning Post, May 21), which suggests that opposition to the proposed mega-jail project at Hei Ling Chau from green groups and residents of neighbouring areas contains some measure of the 'not in my backyard' syndrome. This is manifestly not the case, as a glance at any map of Hong Kong will demonstrate. The proposed mega-jail will in fact be in everybody's front yard, clearly visible and in direct line of sight from numerous vantage points, including The Peak, Lamma Island, West Kowloon, Tsing Yi, Eastern Lantau, Discovery Bay, Peng Chau, Mui Wo, Cheung Chau, numerous hiking trails and from every passing ferry to and from the outlying islands and Macau. The proposed location could not be more visible, bang in the middle of a major tourist 'spine' - it is even in the 'face' of Hong Kong's famous sunsets. The issue has opened up a lot of inter-related environmental issues such as land planning, sustainable development, potential loss to tourism and eco-tourism alternatives. Yet it seems in this case that the government is focused only on the issue of the prison itself. Such blinkered views can seriously damage Hong Kong. It is also astonishing, even scandalous, that both the Tourism Commission and the Hong Kong Tourism Board have declared they have no position on this issue. Hei Ling Chau and Sunshine Islands are beautiful natural resources that should be used to boost our flagging tourist industry, but which government department will now stand up to protect them? It is estimated that the Hong Kong tourist industry and related businesses stand to lose 42,000 jobs and $28 billion in revenue as a result of the Sars outbreak. Yet the Sars outbreak has one silver lining - Hong Kong residents and local tourists have re-discovered the joys and beauty of the outlying islands. The government should focus on developing tourism for Hei Ling Chau and the outlying islands, spending the $12 billion where it will generate growth in local tourist industries. Where there is a will there will surely be a way. NEIL McLAUGHLIN Lantau CHINESE SOUP AND IMMUNITY I have been reluctant to share my experience of how my immune system has improved, because it is personal. But on reading Simon Pang's letter headlined 'Does Chinese medicine really cure Sars?' (May 20), I feel obliged to defend this valuable tradition and I am driven also by its potential benefit for others. Born in a poor farming family with five siblings in a village in Guangdong during the 1950s, I ate rice and meat only a few days a year and food for the animals the rest of the time, with the occasional watery porridge. I was always hungry until I escaped to Hong Kong in the 1970s. I immigrated to the US as a refugee in the 1980s. All through this time, my immune system was so weak that I caught a cold or flu almost every other month, and each time it lasted a month. I tried all the western treatments available, but they did not work. Two years ago, I returned to Hong Kong and stayed with my aunt, and since then I have experienced a major improvement in my immune system. ' Cantonese families have a tradition of cooking 'long-hour' soup, but my aunt cooks it almost twice as long as others. Armed with scientific knowledge, I protested to my aunt at the start: 'Why do you cook the soup for five hours? Don't you understand that the nutrients will be ruined?' 'What do you know?' she grunted. 'My body cannot take 'cool' food', which caused her to get sick easily. Cooking the soup for so long, she believes, will get rid of the 'coolness' in it, 'heating' it to neutral. Anyway, she was in charge of the kitchen. I stopped complaining and ate what she put on the table. Miraculously, I have noticed that my immune system has improved significantly, that I have not had a cold or flu for nearly two years except for the month after I moved in with my aunt. I have no idea how it works. All I know is my aunt's soup has lean pork, two kinds of beans and a few items of Chinese medicine. Can anyone explain? DAVID TSUI KAI-TSIN Tuen Mun LEARN FROM GUANGZHOU We are glad to see that the government has finally invited traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) experts from Guangzhou to start a programme for Sars patients in Hong Kong. However, there is a big flaw in the programme. As far as we TCM practitioners know, the government has no intention of inviting any of our 7,000 registered or listed practitioners in Hong Kong to participate. We believe that most are eager for the chance to help Sars patients. Moreover, while the experiences of the Guangzhou experts are invaluable, the government has not arranged for them to share these with local TCM practitioners. The two experts cannot stay in Hong Kong forever. It is important that their experiences are passed on to the local practitioners, who could smoothly take up the responsibilities of monitoring Sars patients in the long run. The Hospital Authority says it needs to experiment on a small scale to evaluate the effect of TCM on Sars patients. We disagree. First, TCM concentrates on the reaction of the patient instead of the virus itself. Hence, different formulas should be used for different Sars patients. Secondly, TCM is legal in Hong Kong. To have TCM 'tested out' before we can use it on a larger scale for Sars patients is extremely contradictory. Experiments on a small scale are a waste of time. People are dying and we have lost three medics already. Sars patients have been treated with western medicine for the past two months and it is perhaps time to try our best with TCM. A better arrangement can be made to assist Sars patients through treatment by local TCM practitioners coupled with help and advice from the Guangzhou experts. There has never been a more appropriate time for the government to start a well-planned and long-term programme, which has TCM practitioners working with western doctors in public hospitals. The government should act now. The number of new Sars infections has been decreasing for some days, but the WHO is reluctant to take Hong Kong off the blacklist because we still have hundreds, instead of tens, of patients in our hospitals. TCM can help these patients recover faster. THOMAS WONG Causeway Bay CARTOON OFFENDED I write to express my outrage over the cartoon 'The war on terrorism' (South China Morning Post, May 15). It depicted a caricature of who I assume is US President George W. Bush jumping from point to point on a map of the Middle East trying to catch up with the shadow of terrorism. He is quoted as saying - to which I object - 'Come here, Godammit!' This quote is senseless, unnecessary, and highly offensive to Christians. It is senseless because President Bush, a Christian, would not use such an expression. It is unnecessary because it adds nothing to the meaning of the cartoon. It is offensive because the Bible clearly prohibits using the name of God in vain. I appreciate the exercise of the freedoms of speech and expression, which we all cherish. However, this cartoon has demeaned the standing and reputation of a great newspaper. FREDRICK N. VOIGTMANN Taipei ACTION ON MOSQUITOES I refer to the letter headlined 'What about the midges?' (April 23) concerning the insect issues at Lai Chi Kok Park and Hong Kong Park. To tie in with the government's efforts to prevent the spread of dengue fever and Sars, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department has been taking rigorous preventive measures by cleaning and disinfecting our venues at least weekly, including parks. The department has also issued guidelines to its contractors to remind them of specific measures on how to keep our parks clean and dry to eliminate mosquito breeding places and prevent the spread of Sars. Among the measures are the removal of stagnant water to eliminate the breeding places of mosquitoes, midges and gnats, and cleaning and disinfecting outdoor facilities thoroughly, including benches. For any further enquiries, contact me at 2601 8886. ALFRED CHI-MAN CHOW Senior Leisure Manager (Horticulture) for Director of Leisure and Cultural Services
