I refer to the article headlined 'Judges and politics don't mix' (October 19). The writer commented on two matters, a decision of Mr Justice Hartmann in court and a speech by Mr Justice Tang made out of court. Regarding Mr Justice Hartmann's decision on costs in Leung Kwok-hung's case, it is trite law that the judge has discretion on a question of costs. I do not think it is justified to suggest that the judge's decision was in any way affected by political motives. I am sure that if the other interested parties in the case think the judge was wrong in not awarding costs against Mr Leung, they know that they can exercise their right to ask for leave to appeal. I agree that there may be cases where someone would seek to use the court as a means to pursue his own political interests. This may take the form of private suits or criminal prosecutions. In fact, in his speech opening the legal year in 2003, Alan Leong SC, then Bar chairman, cited some examples of this and strongly condemned the practice. However, in fairness to the judiciary, the court cannot refuse to adjudicate on a case properly brought before it, whether the person bringing the case is politically motivated or not. The other incident was a special Bar mess held on September 24 in honour of Mr Justice Tang. This was a private function of the Bar. Traditionally the Bar mess is not open to solicitors, and Kennedy Wong, the writer, is no exception. Mr Justice Tang addressed the mess on the importance of the rule of law and having good legislation. While he did say that Audrey Eu, Ronny Tong, Alan Leong, the three ex-Bar chairmen, and Margaret Ng would strike fear into the heart of every enemy of the rule of law, in no instance did he associate their achievement with the Article 45 Concern Group. As I recall, the group was not mentioned at all. Mr Justice Tang also mentioned that 'all but one' previous Bar chairmen had upheld the traditional role as defenders of the rule of law in Hong Kong. While I am not sure about the exception he mentioned, I agree with his general observation. It is the Bar's role to uphold the rule of law and this tradition will go on. As leader of the Bar, the chairman is expected to take the lead in maintaining the rule of law and I have no doubt that someone who is not prepared to defend it should not and would not be elected chairman. Insofar as Mr Justice Tang had made such a suggestion in his address to the Bar, he was merely stating the obvious. I do not agree that Mr Justice Tang's speech was politically motivated. Nor do I think that he preached politics. The rule of law is independent from and above politics. Every member of the judiciary should be, and is expected to be, a defender of the rule of law. I would point out that a chairman of the Bar is elected every year by the full members of the Bar Association. There is no question of anyone being 'chosen' as successor. Any suggestion that the speech of Mr Justice Tang might have interfered with such a process is utterly misconceived. I agree with the headline that 'judges and politics don't mix', but I do not agree that the article illustrates that this proposition has not been observed, or that there is a danger that it might not be observed. EDWARD CHAN SC, chairman, Hong Kong Bar Association Minor pollution source Peter Crush (October 19) suggested that by reducing the number of vehicles, pollution in Hong Kong would be partly arrested. He mistakenly claimed that I have denied that Hong Kong's pollution is even partly homegrown. I did not deny this, but I did say letters such as his were distracting us from campaigning against the main source of pollutants, the Pearl River industrial area. Until this is fixed, acting on suggestions such as his will only scratch the surface of the problem. However, I agree with Paul Serfaty (October 14), who implored the government to undertake more scientific analysis of pollution sources and make this information public, rather than have us rely on a common-sense approach to understanding the problem, underpinned by years of observations. I admire both correspondents for their desire to bring about change. To be able to breathe clean air is such a basic need that I fail to see how anybody can think this is a lesser problem than, for example, the pace of democratic change. I also do not understand why all your correspondents on this issue seem to be foreigners. Local friends either say it is a question of priorities or there is nothing we can do about it. I am beginning to think many people have accepted dirty air as the price we have to pay for economic progress. I think that this lack of spirited public interest is why the government seems to be offering only lip service to the problem, rather than exerting as much pressure as possible on our neighbours. Please, local people as well as foreigners, show that you care about having clean air to breathe. CHRIS STUBBS, Mid-Levels Empty words on public In the letter 'Public comes first' (October 18) by W. K. Lam, director of the Chief Executive's Office, he denied that Tung Chee-hwa had put the interests of businesspeople before those of the Hong Kong public, as claimed by Albert Cheng King-hon. Mr Lam said the government was determined to put the people's interests at the forefront. But what he said was empty words. The reality is that Mr Tung's government cares only about the interests of the property developers, especially the big ones. Look at the city's skyscrapers, what an eyesore! Look at the development in Ap Lei Chau in recent years. According to the Guinness World Records, Ap Lei Chau is the world's most densely populated island with a population of 80,000. But this information is outdated. It now has a population of 93,000 (excluding three major new developments). In more than 10 years on this island, I have not seen the government do anything to improve the environment or the quality of life. Instead, it is approving more high-density residential and hotel developments. Mr Lam, do you know that living in such an overcrowded area drives people mad, especially when we are still facing negative-equity and living in the shadow of Sars and bird flu? NG LEE-LAN, Ap Lei Chau Referendum betrayal Once again, Hong Kong's pro-Beijing leadership has betrayed the people by refusing to hold a referendum to gather public opinion about political reform in 2007-08 and beyond. This referendum poses no harm to the 'one country, two systems' principle. On the contrary, it could show the world - and Taiwan in particular - that the concept is really working. If voting by hands is denied, then the people will have no alternative but to vote with their feet - to repeat the July 1 'long march' of the past two years. There is a Chinese saying, 'To stop people airing their opinions is more difficult than to stop the river from flowing.' I hope that the people in power are not going to bury their heads in the sand again. STEPHEN CHAN, Mei Foo Risk of Sars? A Canadian woman went to China recently and on her return she had the symptoms of Sars. If she really has Sars, there are two probabilities: she caught the disease by eating forbidden animals, or there is Sars in the mainland population. We know that the mainland always conceals things. Last year it was Sars, then fake food and dirty food factories. If there is still Sars in the population, will Beijing try to hide it again? Probably. So there is a risk of another Sars plague in the mainland, Canada and Hong Kong. People in these countries should be alerted and be very attentive to their hygiene. BONNIE PANG, Sha Tin Problems all around In the letter 'Gay problems' (October 20), Gordon Truscott details a list of woes associated with gay sex and gay relationships. Interestingly, the same list applies to straight sex and straight relationships. JOHN NEWSON, Lamma