Q Should the import duty on wine be reduced? It seemed incongruous that the former financial secretary, in his budget address of 2002, declared the government was to make Hong Kong the 'culinary capital of Asia' and in the next breath increased wine duty by 20 per cent. The statements are not compatible. The time is ripe to refocus on the culinary capital aspect, as wine is an inherent part of good dining. Garry Coley, Sham Tseng Your headline item was a welcome acknowledgement that this government needs pressuring into ending this gross anomaly of an 80 per cent wine duty in a city that prides itself on its 'free port' image. The government's own consultation document is quite open in declaring its bias in favour of the status quo - 'The Administration's Position: Duty Should be Retained'. This seems typical of this government's attitude on consulting the public and the civil service's self-serving policy. Why self-serving? Because one significant factor in comparing the relative costs of by-value versus by-volume duty systems is the multi-tiered branch of the customs and excise department whose function it is to calculate the 'value' of the thousands of different wines imported. The consultation document offers many figures in favour of the status quo, but fails to mention the legion of unsung heroes of the civil service who apparently - ask any importer - think nothing of quibbling over a few dollars, holding up countless transactions. I challenge the financial secretary to make the calculation of how far a shift to a by-volume duty would allow the government to pursue its goal of reducing public expenditure. I ask that he reveal the true cost to the Treasury of employing civil servants to calculate by-value wine duty on all the different wine brands imported into Hong Kong. The cost to the government of this system extends beyond accounting to policing of a shady world of cowboy operators, falsified invoices and smuggled wine. A by-volume system would reward the bona fide wine and spirit operators and clear the system of much dishonesty. Shifting to a by-volume duty would earn the government far more revenue - both directly and indirectly. The quality of the dining experience, and boost to tourism and business entertainment that would result, is clearly hard for this government to imagine. Those are indirect benefits the government seems unable to contemplate. In calculating comparative revenue from the various duty systems, the government should be weighing in the personnel cost of levying an ad valorem duty. Nigel Bruce, Pokfulam Q Should smoking be legal in restaurants outside peak hours? The legislator representing the catering industry, who proposes part-time smoking in restaurants, is called Tommy. Tommyrot is defined in the Oxford dictionary as meaning 'nonsense'. The smoking lobby is obviously running scared, with smokers fearing they will have to face up to their addiction or be ostracised by most of society - and not just professional activists in Mid-Levels and narrow interests as the author of the letter headed 'Responsible smoking' (February 17) claims. The government and everyone interested in this issue must stand firm against narrow interests - those who profit from sales of tobacco. There needs to be a total ban in all public places and it should be enforced as soon as possible. Esther Morris, Mid-Levels Q Do you think the Central-Wan Chai bypass should go ahead? The proposed Wan-Chai bypass will ruin our spectacular harbourfront. A key cause of traffic congestion along the Central-Causeway Bay trunk road has to result from the relatively high tolls at the Western Harbour Tunnel. My suggestion is for a very simple experiment. This involves setting fees for all three cross-harbour tunnels at the same level for four weeks. Such a programme would, I am convinced, provide a robust test of my hypothesis, which I believe many in the western part of Hong Kong Island subscribe to. I look forward to the relevant government official providing mincing excuses as to why my suggestion cannot be undertaken. Jason R. Ali , Sheung Wan I strongly oppose the plan of filling in the harbour to build the new road. The government believes there is an urgent need for a bypass in solving congestion in Central. But the reclamation project will only result in a short-term benefit as the newly built bypass will soon be saturated. Eventually, congestion problems will re-emerge. Instead of further reclaiming the harbour, the government should introduce some sustainable measures. Another concern we have to consider is the preservation of our renowned Victoria Harbour. It is not only the city's most famous tourist attraction, but also one of the world's best deep-water harbours. If the reclamation projects continue, the harbour will soon be narrowed to a mere river. Dumping mud and concrete, affects the quality of water. As a citizen of Hong Kong, I am keen to see better use of the waterfront. Constructing more roads but destroying our prime natural asset is not the solution to congestion. Sustainable measures, like the road-pricing system, can be adopted. It limits the number of vehicles entering the city core during rush hours. Also, the government should discourage use of private cars by increasing the registration fee of vehicles. I hope our next generation can still enjoy the stunning view of our famous Victoria Harbour. Name and address supplied On other matters ... Almost all respectable organisations have their own websites to cater for clients' requests. Whatever the quality of the websites, the most important thing to visitors is the response time or any response at all. The Hong Kong government has apparently spent a lot of resources in building comprehensive and professional quality websites, including all departments, and I have used them for various reasons. Generally I am satisfied with the response rate. However, as regard to the Fire Services Department's website, I have found its lack of response totally bewildering. On February 7 I sent a request to the FSD's website asking about the number of ambulances serving Hong Kong and I received verification of my e-mail. After two weeks without a response I wrote another e-mail asking for a reply within seven days. I have not received any reply. If the website is not going to respond, why waste taxpayers' money paying those involved? Damon Choy, Tai Tam
