Jake van der Kamp clearly considers himself something of an expert on the economic realities of the aviation industry ('Solution for high airport charges should start with doubling them', September 17), a view not entirely shared by members of Aerospace Forum Asia, who would like to invite him to participate in an exchange of views at a convenient time and place. Meanwhile, let's put some of his observations in perspective. It makes no sense to compare the return on equity at Hong Kong's six-year-old state-of-the-art international airport - built on costly reclaimed land - with that of the British Airports Authority (BAA), which for the most part is operating mature and, in some cases, exceedingly worn-out assets. Anyone accustomed to enduring the abysmal levels of service and facilities at London Heathrow, which result from chronic failure to invest in timely maintenance and upgrading of the passenger terminals, is not going to be much impressed by the BAA's financial buoyancy. Interestingly, van der Kamp omits to mention that airport charges at Heathrow and Gatwick are low compared to other major hubs and have historically been held down by government regulators to increases well below the annual rate of inflation. This has only been possible because revenues from commercial concessions have been brought into a 'single till' for the purposes of paying for the operation of the airport. Van der Kamp champions the 'dual till' concept under which 'the airlines pay the airline part and we keep the money from our investment in other facilities'. I am sure that those, like myself, who have been involved in negotiations with airlines on airport charges, would welcome illumination on how to calculate 'the airline part'. The truth is that determining the right level of airport charges will always be more of an art than a science. Does it make sense to contemplate a doubling of charges at Hong Kong International Airport in the immediate aftermath of the opening of a new competitor hub in Guangzhou? I do not think so and neither does your transport and logistics writer Russell Barling, whose Below Deck column the same day provided a much appreciated dose of common sense. ELIZABETH BOSHER, director general, Aerospace Forum Asia, Hong Kong ICAC's election role I refer to the letter 'Don't meddle, ICAC' (September 17), which commented on remarks made by ICAC Commissioner Raymond Wong Hung-chiu on election complaints. After attending a public function on September 14, Mr Wong told the media that up to the day before, the ICAC had received 87 complaints under the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance in connection with the Legislative Council election. In response to a question, Mr Wong said that judging from information received so far, the election appeared to be clean overall. This remark reflects an assessment based on the information received by the ICAC at the time. To suggest it amounts to political meddling is beyond comprehension and indeed unnecessary. The public can rest assured that the ICAC is determined to keep dirty hands off our elections and will vigorously pursue every complaint in full accordance with the law. VALENTINA CHAN, chief press information officer, Independent Commission Against Corruption US hedges popular vote I was a bit baffled that Martin Lee Chu-ming in a letter criticised the Hong Kong electoral system of proportional representation as not reflective of a modern society ('Restore first-past-the-post system', September 21). Mr Lee, a lawyer well versed in western-style legal systems, should know that the US uses a system for voting in the presidential elections, as well, whereby the largest states (California, Florida, New York) have more electoral college votes than smaller states. Therefore, it is possible for a president to win the election with the electoral college vote and not the popular vote. This system will be in action in the US presidential election on November 2. HARRIET WEN TUNG, Repulse Bay Reason to learn Chinese I was perplexed by Dr David C. Anderson's comments (September 21). It is disappointing that one would live in a foreign country for 13 years and not learn the local language. Cantonese is complex, with its rich variety of tonal distinctions, but it more than compensates for this with simple grammar. I am not from a Chinese family, nor am I a linguistics expert. I am a European. With less than two years in Hong Kong (and five years' informal study in a western country), I can communicate fluently in Cantonese. My language skill is not special or unique. I simply persisted after experiencing pronunciation problems, lack of communication confidence, a non-roman script and being ridiculed by native speakers. Dr Anderson mentions the tiny number of expats in Hong Kong as one reason not to learn Cantonese. I would argue this is even more reason to study it. Being small in numbers, we are vulnerable to political and other changes. Without Chinese, we will always be 'foreigners'. The government is also to blame. It should do more to encourage the learning of Chinese, with grants. Many years of English study have failed miserably. It is time for a change. By learning Cantonese, expats will gain a more realistic and genuine experience of Hong Kong. ADAM GAUNA, Ho Man Tin Welfare cuts shameful Is there no end to the mean-spiritedness of the government? First it puts upon Philippine helpers and now the aged, disabled and distressed. What next? Quadriplegics? The same deflation argument used to cut benefits by 11.1 per cent could just as easily be applied to civil servants' salaries and perquisites. As for saying that too generous payments dissuade participation in the workforce, how many octogenarians are on the government payroll? Those government fat cats should hang their heads in shame. WENDY McTAVISH, Mid-Levels Famous failure list? As I looked at the photo of Li Xiaolin, vice-chairwoman of China Power International Development and daughter of Li Peng ('China Power to boost capacity', September 22), a thought crossed my mind: Is there some sort of list detailing the offspring of Beijing's Communist Party leaders who have not been successful in business ventures? CHARLES HENNING, Guangzhou Logic of sanctions The letter 'Sanctions hurt junta' (September 20) presents a wonderful argument: sanctions are justified regardless of their effect on the people, as they prevent the government from buying weapons and suppressing the citizenry. 'Sanctions are just punishment for the junta', and the real trouble for the people started when it came to power. Following this logic, I propose the rest of the world imposes sanctions on a country with an almost universally detested government; which recently attacked another country on false pretexts; violates the human rights of unlawfully detained prisoners; and spends more on weapons than any country in history. Should these sanctions negatively affect the livelihood of Americans, would the letter-writer still hold to this view? I suggest that sanctions be used when and where they can help achieve a defined objective, say the removal of a dictatorial government within a set period, and with minimal social cost. Not vindictively, as in the case of Cuba, where sanctions are used to punish the country and its people for a choice made not in favour of foreign political circles. EVAN FOWLER, Sha Tin
