I am quite saddened to read about the 'misunderstanding' between Hang Seng Bank and Josefa Almeda regarding her inability to open a personal account with the bank ('Racism claim after bank turns away Filipino woman', June 28). I can appreciate the bank's policy with regards to the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on Money Laundering's classification of the Philippines as an unco-operative country. However, the bank could have addressed the situation with Ms Almeda with more clarity, sensitivity and professional courtesy. Prudent customer service demands so. The Philippines is indeed classified as 'unco-operative'. The FATF has imposed inevitable sanctions, which include strict scrutiny that can severely delay international transactions such as trade financing and income remittances by Philippine citizens. The fault for this sorry state of affairs lies entirely with the recently adjourned 13th Congress of the Philippines. Threats of sanctions led to the passing of the Philippine Anti-Money Laundering Act last year. As with everything in the Philippines, however, the enactment of the bill became a highly politicised issue. Despite aggressive lobbying by President Gloria Arroyo's administration, members of the legislature - acting perhaps to protect their 'hidden' assets - passed an emasculated law that was unacceptable to the FATF. Under threat of further sanctions, congress enacted an amendment to the law, which has now been resubmitted to the FATF for assessment. According to Governor Rafael Buenaventura of the Philippine Central Bank, however, the Philippines will not be removed from the blacklist anytime soon because review of the law against dirty money will drag on until year's end. There is also no assurance that the FATF will eventually find the law satisfactory. I guess we Filipinos must endure more unhappy and frustrating situations such as Ms Almeda's for an undetermined period of time. RUEL F. TRINIDAD, Yau Ma Tei Fast-shifting identity Hong Kong's identity is a fast-moving target and I was bemused to read Anna Naidu's attempt to use anecdotal sightings to try to pin it down ('Fading identity', June 28). The number of (presumably, white) Europeans on the streets or on the teaching staff at universities (which, by the way, I trust, as they hire on merit rather than race) has nothing to do with anything. General English proficiency, as columnist Jake van der Kamp has pointed out, is a function of need: we have exactly the proficiency that employers are willing to pay for. With each new wave of immigration, emigration and economic upheaval, Hong Kong reinvented itself, adapted and thrived. Its latest identity is being forged not least by events such as the July 1 march. If Ms Naidu wants to get a handle on things, I suggest she go along. She might even see quite a few European faces. GAURANG THAKKAR, Chiang Mai Tung's time in village I wish to make a couple of clarifications about your June 28 article on Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's visit to Yuen Long. Mr Tung went to Yau Mei San Tsuen to see for himself the anti-mosquito work going on there. The work was part of the scheduled programme to tackle mosquito problems in the vicinity of Palm Springs, where a confirmed Japanese encephalitis case was found. Mr Tung arrived at the village at 3.15pm and was not late. K. W. MAK for Director, Chief Executive's Office Scary people? Why is the slogan 'power to the people' so threatening to Beijing? After all, it is the People's Republic of China, isn't it? NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED English-derived system Jeffrey H. Hui may be 'stunned to learn' that Hong Kong electors are permitted to elect candidates who do not live in their constituency ('Run in own district', June 29). In the UK, electors are allowed to judge such candidates, and even in New York; though Hillary Clinton's residence has not been lengthy, she can stand for the Senate. The US is large and its system federal. Hong Kong is the opposite, and our system is derived from the English one. So where is the surprise? More surprising is his suggestion that it is wrong to equate universal suffrage with democracy. That may have been the view a hundred years ago, or when women did not have the vote, but today, universal suffrage is the indispensable precondition of democracy. You can mess up democratic government in many different ways, but to deny each person an equal vote is to exclude the possibility of democracy. If Mr Hui reaches back into history, he will recall the word demos means 'people' - not rich people, not male persons, not well-connected persons, just ordinary people. Hence 'universal' suffrage is an indissoluble part of modern democracy. PAUL SERFATY, Mid-Levels Not an Islamic state I congratulate you on the leader headlined 'Bush on vital mission to win Turkish support' (June 26). Nato's Istanbul summit is indeed vital and I fully share your expectations of it. Whatever the outcome, Turkey will continue to support the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq. I refer to your calling Turkey 'one of the largest, most modern Islamic democracies in the world'. While 99 per cent of the Turkish population is Muslim, Turkey is a secular state. To label its democracy as Islamic would be as misleading as qualifying other democracies in the west as 'Christian'. Just as the religion 'Christianity' has no bearing on their democracy - despite the existence of political parties with such names - the rules and obligations of the Islamic religion do not play any role in the implementation and institutions of democracy in Turkey. A. KASIF ERYALCIN, Consul-General of Turkey Losing moral heights As much as Jeff Anderson felt that he needed to respond to anti-American attitudes in his letter headlined 'Thank America' (June 23), I feel that I must respond to him. Mr Anderson, I, like yourself, am an American. I am proud of our history and culture. I also see no problem with the United States 'taking action to liberate oppressed peoples', as you put it. I am offended, however, at the methods used by the US government in the current situation in Iraq. When one country attacks another on the basis of liberating oppressed people, and then employs techniques clearly against all modern standards of human rights, can it not be said that that country has lost the moral high ground? Add this to the fact that the very motives for going to Iraq (as opposed to Saudi Arabia, where 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were citizens) are suspect, and the hypocrisy is clear to anyone whose emotions are not stuck back in 1945. Yes, we saved the world then, and we should be proud of that. But that was 60 years ago, and we should not let past heroics be the basis for destroying the very essence of what we are supposed to stand for. RYAN LANDOLT, Tai Po Those white coats I refer to the anonymous complainant's letter headlined 'Doctors ignore risk' (June 19). Please note that white laboratory coats or clothing worn by emergency or surgical staff are uniform, not personal protective clothing. If working in high-risk clinical areas or the laboratory, staff are required to put on appropriate protective clothing and discard them after they leave the site. CONNIE CHOW, community relations, Queen Mary Hospital
