As a liberal (with a small 'l'), I see no objection to opening casinos in Hong Kong. What I do find objectionable, however, is the unregulated promotion of lies and half-truths by gambling operators to give an exciting image to what is a tedious and rather grubby pastime. Take for example the Jockey Club's recent billboard in Happy Valley with the headline, 'Keep striking and you'll hit gold in April'. This is an outright distortion of the truth, which is more like, 'Keep betting and you'll probably lose all your money in April'. Most casinos offer advice on betting strategies. What strategy can there be in playing roulette or big-and-small? Scattering your chips randomly on the table is equally effective as any other procedure. Even the Mark Six is not immune. The Jockey Club publishes statistics on how often each number has been drawn. This is to encourage the belief that if a number hasn't come up recently it is more likely to do so in the future. This, of course, is an absurd falsehood: the balls in today's draw have no knowledge of what happened in the past. Most casinos, and even our own dear Jockey Club, deliberately mislead their punters into believing they can somehow beat the laws of probability. They cover themselves with 'responsible gambling policies', but these are all about how the punter should behave - unfortunately it does not extend to how the Jockey Club should promote its games. Other pointless vices, such as smoking, are forced to tell the truth. If people want to gamble in Hong Kong casinos, then let them. But let Hong Kong take a lead in stopping the practice of encouraging lies to glamorise a game of chance. ROY PROUSE, Stanley Policy for air traveller While not fully understanding the issues in an open skies policy, and the effect that they may have on Hong Kong's economy, as a frequent flyer I do understand the situation from the passenger's point of view ('Adopt open skies policy, US official urges HK', April 20). The dismissal of US Secretary of Transport Norman Mineta's proposal for open skies, by Cathay Pacific's chief operating officer Tony Tyler, sounded more like restrictive practices than anything that might benefit passengers. He argued for 'progressive liberalisation', which is code for the status quo, and keeping Cathay Pacific's monopoly. Part of Mr Tyler's argument consisted of what he considered to be good for Hong Kong. He seemed to be unaware that Hong Kong is not only the Hang Seng index; it consists primarily of people. Economy-class seats have got closer and closer together, to the point where the main cabin is beginning to look like the hold of a slaver, and is about as comfortable. More seats mean more passengers, and as cabin crew numbers have been cut, this has resulted in poorer service. It would be unfair to single out Cathay Pacific as being the only airline whose product has deteriorated. The numbers game in economy class has resulted throughout the world in seating that is bordering on physical abuse. There is also the argument that if other countries are protectionist, opening up your own skies could be detrimental. My argument is that few things improve without competition, and Hong Kong prides itself on its free market. The contention that the buoyancy of Hong Kong's air transport is directly related to Cathay Pacific's monopoly is specious. It is more reasonable to suggest that Cathay Pacific's prosperity is due to its monopoly. There appear to be few benefits for the people of Hong Kong in the present arrangement. The airlines are just not getting it right. BOB CRAWFORD, Tung Chung Shenzhen not talking? We refer to your article 'River cleanup 'could end in disaster'' (April 16) about the mainland's plan to clean up the Shenzhen River. As you said, we are worried about the consequences of the proposal to divert water from Mirs Bay through the Shenzhen River and into Deep Bay. Other options, such as the interception of most freshwater inflow to the Shenzhen River, may also have significant impact on the ecosystem in the Mai Po and Inner Deep Bay sites, both protected under the global Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. You indicate that an Environmental Protection Department spokesperson could not comment on the proposals because it knew nothing about them. We find this surprising because we notified them on March 22 expressing our concerns. It is equally worrying that the Shenzhen authorities do not feel obligated to speak to their counterparts in the Hong Kong government when making a decision of this magnitude. E. A. BOHM, CEO, World Wide Fund for Nature Hong Kong Behind Japan's stance What has been hard to understand in the public outcry about Japan's refusal to acknowledge the appalling behaviour of its occupying forces during the second world war is a complete lack of criticism of the main culprit that allowed the country to persist in its denial: the US. General Douglas MacArthur, who governed Japan after its surrender, allowed Emperor Hirohito to stay on the throne. The mass murder of a few hundred thousand civilians in Nanking is not something you can expect people to forget about. Hirohito was supreme commander of Japan's armed forces. That he was allowed to stay on as emperor until he died was a disgrace of immense proportions, as well as a deep insult to those murdered by his soldiers and the survivors who suffered severely at their hands. Because of US foreign policy in Asia (containment of the communist threat), by 1948 MacArthur decided to stop all court cases in Japan, and from then on turned a blind eye to its war criminals. In 1954 Shigemitsu Mamoru, after serving seven years in prison for his crimes as an 'A category' war criminal (the worst kind), was sworn in as foreign minister. Three years later, Kishi Nobosuke even made it to prime minister, after in 1945 having been put in the same infamous category. Given the stance of successive US governments and Japan's establishment, who turned national denial into Japan's version of history, it cannot come as a surprise that bad feelings towards the country persist. DICK VAN TOULON VAN DER KOOG, Stanley Lifting mainland stocks The poor performance of the stock market in the mainland has disappointed many people, given the economy is doing so well. A major problem is the non-tradable founder shares, which take up two-thirds of market capitalisation. Also, there is more than US$1.4 trillion private savings in the Chinese banking system sitting unproductively. So why do Chinese investors not invest a small portion of bank savings in the stock market? Or, what has made investors lose confidence in the market? A recent survey shows that nine out of 10 private investors lose money. The problem has to do with stock manipulation, which is rampant but rarely discussed in public, partly because the manipulator is usually the majority shareholder of the listed company which is linked to the local government or other authority. The suggested solution: a company's founder shares could be traded over three years. In the first year, up to one-third of the shares could be traded but only at a price level 10 per cent higher than the highest trading price in the previous year. Thus private investors would have little worry investing in this stock because they would know that their shares would likely be bought at a higher price. Further, the number of founder shares allowed to be traded would be based on 10 per cent of the total volume traded in the previous year. There would be a floor on the price level as well as a ceiling on the number of founder shares traded. In the second year, another one-third could be traded. So after three years, the majority shareholder would have 100 per cent of the founder shares tradable. Under this formula, the majority shareholder would have little incentive to manipulate the stock price, because the profit is small compared to being able to trade the massive amount of founder shares. Also, private investors, with the confidence that the majority shareholder would mobilise the market positively, would divert a portion of their bank savings into the stock market. The credibility of the stock market would be restored. GUY LAM, Admiralty Same papal message When Pope John Paul II died, many people felt sad that we had lost a good father. But his spirit lasts. In his final speech, he said love can change the world and make it become more peaceful. I expect the new pope will build on this message and lead more people to trust in God. JOSEPHINE LAU, Tin Hau
