Q Have hygiene officers gone too far in the key case? I can't believe what I've been reading. On the assumption that what happened is exactly as reported, then Lau Shiu-fun deserves an apology from the officers involved and someone of authority in the [Food and Environmental Hygiene] department. Either the officers were overzealous in the extreme or they believed they were doing the right thing, in which case the department's training and instructions should be examined. Absolutely crazy! Tony Cook, Hunghom Assuming the housewife's testimony is true, this is a gross failing of the department. A fine is levied against litter. Even to a person with little common sense, a house key would hardly be litter. What's next, fining tourists for dropping their passports? Better go after the taxi drivers who spit or throw a cigarette out of their window every few minutes. Simon Au, Wesleyan University, Kansas Let's assume that things really did happen the way 55-year-old housewife Mrs Lau described. If that is the case, then it raises a few questions. Why was it necessary for eight male officers from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to confront her? Is dropping your key on the ground really considered littering? How long does an item have to remain on the ground before it is considered litter? For example, if I attempt to toss an item of rubbish into a litter bin but miss, then step back to retrieve it from the ground and try again, how much time do I have before I can be accused of littering? While the eight officers were bullying Mrs Lau, were there any other officers on the lookout for offenders? For instance, was anyone keeping an eye out for people tossing cigarette butts on the ground? There are two sides to every story, and maybe it didn't happen exactly the way Mrs Lau described, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. I've seen the hygiene department staff in action, and their rudeness would have shocked me if it had happened anywhere outside Hong Kong. Rennie Marques, Mei Foo Sun Chuen It is alleged that eight officers of the hygiene department attended the 'littering offence' of Mrs Lau. Why are sufficiently large teams not stationed in areas like Jordan, Yau Ma Tei and Tsim Sha Tsui where, for example, Nathan Road is plagued by the stick-on handbills placed three to four paces apart on bus stop signs, hand rails - anything that will accept these unsightly messages. Further, as these 'handbills' have phone numbers on them, I would assume this would be a good starting place to track the offenders. Garry Coley, Sham Tseng Q Should use of illicit encoding and decoding devices be outlawed? We wish to thank a writer supporting your editorial's stance (January 10) against any form of signal piracy, but we find it difficult to accept his argument to justify patronage of illegal services. Let me first take up his allegation of exorbitant fees charged by Cable TV. Pay TV is an operation involving enormous investment with a small margin; there is also intense competition in Hong Kong's multi-operator environment. Subscription rates that do not take into account such market realities will not be sustainable, naturally. In the case of Cable TV, we invested $7 billion (excluding interest) from 1993 to 1999 before the first profit - in the paltry amount of $20 million - was reported in 2000, which would represent a return on investment (excluding interest) of 0.3 per cent per annum. Even at the 2003 net profit of $220 million, the return on investment (excluding interest) was only 3 per cent per annum. That would hardly cover the cost of money, let alone repaying the principal. That can also hardly be described as exorbitant and is certainly not gouging. If Cable TV were gouging, the natural forces of a free market economy would have corrected it. The fact that all of the other pay TV operators in Hong Kong are losing quite a lot of money would suggest there is not a great deal of margin in this business. The example given of a block of flats (not receiving Cable TV) next to the Miramar Hotel is living illustration of the economic reality. If it were such a profitable proposition, we would have taken the order a long time ago. The alternative of taking and fulfilling the order at a loss is unacceptable because that loss would need to be passed on to other consumers. The truth is that Hong Kong is a costly city in which to build infrastructure and very costly to build a customised service. India is a market with a population of 1 billion versus the less than 7 million in Hong Kong. Hence, drawing comparison between those two markets would not be relevant. On the subject of comparison, pay TV subscriptions in developed economies with comparable per capita income as Hong Kong (such as the US and the Britain), are charged at a significantly higher rate than what we charge. More specifically, major sports programmes such as the English Premier League and Grand Slam tennis are part of Cable TV's basic package for the enjoyment of all Cable TV subscribers at no additional charge. Heavyweight boxing, on the other hand, is licensed to Cable TV by the programme suppliers on a pay-per-view basis. As such we must supply those programmes to viewers on that basis. We would like to reiterate that the selling of illicit decoders and their use in a commercial context are criminal offences carrying heavy penalties, including imprisonment. Legal action should be relentlessly pursued against all illegal users. Unfortunately, pirates have from time to time attempted to justify their illegal acts by advancing various excuses, such as having to pay 'exorbitant' fees for a legitimate service. Such callous disrespect for law and order certainly has no place in a civilised society and will be subject to condemnation by all law-abiding citizens. Garmen Chan, spokesman, Cable TV
