Q How should Kwun Tong be redeveloped? Kwun Tong is a historical district. However, it has many problems such as traffic congestion, urban decay and lack of planning and zoning to meet the needs of its residents. I am a resident of Kwun Tong and I believe it should be redeveloped. Some private enterprises have already started the renewal process. For instance, the shopping centre, APM, constructed by Sun Hung Kai Properties, has also encouraged upgrades at the places nearby. It is believed that APM will be a landmark providing high-order goods and services in Kwun Tong. The Urban Renewal Authority should mainly focus on the redevelopment of housing and roads. Most buildings in Kwun Tong are too close together, creating slums as well as noise and air pollution from vehicles and hawkers. This creates a poor living environment. Irregular road patterns cause traffic jams and pollution. Although the University of Hong Kong survey found 70 per cent of people living there prefer redevelopment, there are limits. The most difficult problem faced by the government would be compensation and resettlement of people. But if people want to live in a good environment, they should co-operate with the government's efforts. Yick Ming Yan, Kwun Tong Q Should anti-discrimination laws cover gays? First, let me direct readers to the excellent letter on this topic by Sean Mok in yesterday's Letters section. Frankly, one hardly knows where to begin when addressing the responses to my e-mail in Wednesday's Talkback. David John Eason again evades the issue of the need for gays to be covered by law by hiding behind his 'right' to discriminate based on his religion. 'To legislate against Christians,' he writes, as if this were the issue. Mr Eason and others note my inability to make peace with religious or moral views that do not accept homosexuality. Quite right. It's discrimination. And the fact that there are so many people out there who feel compelled to oppose the protection of gays by law is evidence of the need for it. Daniel Ho says I fail to listen to 'legitimate concerns about homosexuality', but he fails to provide any. Mr Ho refers to 'considered opinions', but I have to wonder where those opinions come from. It is perhaps from a bigoted parent or friend, or a sermon on the 'abomination' that is homosexuality. And gays are not advocating 'the use of legislation to eradicate views which don't agree with them', as we all know this is an impossibility. But some limits on what can be said and what can be done to gays is a worthy aim. Free speech does not mean saying anything you wish. Gordon Truscott and Leo Kwan are concerned about the potential scenarios created by legislation. Mr Truscott's comment about covering the rights of people to become disease carriers was offensive and smacked of fear-mongering. And if there is any equivocation over the wrongful dismissal of a heterosexual person, one has recourse to legal action. Heterosexuals are seldom in danger of being fired on the basis of their sexual identity. Mr Kwan's comment that gays insist on remaining gay 'in spite of the known, demonstrable harm' they may suffer is both specious and, sadly, true to the extent that it points out the effects of discriminatory attitudes. The harm comes not from being gay, but from prejudicial attitudes towards this identity. I hope these writers will see that everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law, even if this goes against personal belief. Dor Arie, Tin Shui Wai I refer to two letters that appeared yesterday in this column which were, surprisingly, wholly dedicated to opposing the proposed law. Daniel Ho Sin-pan asserts that the church is simply against homosexual acts, not homosexuals. I am not good at wordplay, I just wonder what is left in the life of a homosexual if the church is against 'homosexual acts' such as kissing, holding hands, making love, marrying, growing old together and leaving estates to a partner. Another letter would have you believe that the proposed law is unequal because only homosexuals can have legal redress under it if fired unjustly, but not the heterosexual who experienced the same discrimination. This false logic can be expanded to oppose virtually any discrimination laws, including those that protect the disabled and working mothers. The fact is, if the dismissal has nothing to do with sexual orientation, the protection under that proposed law will mean nothing. We have heard all this false logic decades ago in the fight for the rights of women and minorities. History repeats itself. T.H. Man, Lai King Leo Kwan's statement in yesterday's Talkback demonstrates a misunderstanding of the proposed sexual orientation discrimination ordinance. He suggests that if an ex-gay and a gay male employee were both fired unjustly by their employer, only the gay man would have recourse under a sexual orientation discrimination ordinance. However, under the ordinance anyone fired because of their sexual orientation, would have recourse to redress. Liz Whitelam Q Should the AFCD be split to end a conflict of interest? I agree that the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department should be split. However, splitting the department only resolves its conflict of interest problems and does nothing to deal with the exploitation of fishing resources. It does not address the department's dereliction of duty in the enforcement of existing protection laws. By law, all trawling is prohibited inside marine parks. Yet it is routine and nothing is done about it. Such negligence of enforcing the law must be addressed. The department claims it is restoring habitat lost through trawling, dredging, and land reclamation by deploying artificial reefs. But no reefs have been deployed over the past two years and the programme is running out of money and manpower. Splitting the department will not resolve this. The department should not only be split, its senior staff should be reassessed for competence. Lisa Chien, Causeway Bay On other matters ... I think it's shameful that some bus drivers turn down the volume of the television sets on their buses. Don't they realise that passengers who want to watch television will be forced to fight for the best seats? Even worse are those drivers who don't bother to turn on the televisions at all. They should not be allowed to deprive passengers of their right to know what lingerie best fits (half of) them, which weight loss plan they should be using, which product they simply must have, and which money lenders are ready to rescue them from the red. Passengers are being forced to spend their journeys staring out the window, reading, napping, daydreaming, listening to their own music, chatting with each other, or engaging in one of Hong Kong's most notorious pastimes - cellphone yapping. At least those mired in the last two activities won't have to compete with the television. The offending drivers and their elitist colluders had best beware of such disgruntled people, who I believe constitute 90 per cent of all passengers. Chohong Choi, Kwun Tong
