It seems the University of Hong Kong acted presciently last year when it announced a ban on serving shark's fin soup at official functions. The publication this month of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red List of Endangered Species shows that 20 per cent of sharks and their relatives, or 110 species, are now globally threatened with extinction. That this is an increase from only two species on the 2004 list is an indication of the intensity of the threat sharks face. The conservation body identifies overexploitation by fishing as the cause of declining shark numbers. A stroll through Western district on any day will indicate the role Hong Kong plays in reducing shark populations: traders are importing processed fins by the sackload to satisfy the demand for shark's fin soup. Given the confirmation of suspicions about global declines in shark populations, perhaps we can expect to see some action by the government to control the trade in fins. The Hong Kong Tourism Board could also do its bit to discourage the promotion and sale of shark's fin soup in local restaurants. Hong Kong's contribution to the imperilment of sharks shames us all. DAVID DUDGEON, head, Department of Ecology and Biodiversity, University of Hong Kong Poll people on Tamar I find it heartening that our dear leader claims that there is 70 per cent public support for the Tamar project ('Tamar HQ is people's project, says Tsang', May 26). Now, would he care - or dare - to back up that statement with a referendum of the people? JUSTIN KEEN, Discovery Bay Shades of Article 23 So the chief executive says that 'the government must deliver' on the Tamar project, eh? ('Tamar HQ is people's project, says Tsang', May 26). Why do his words sound so familiar? Wasn't something similar thrown in our faces when the government tried to shove the Article 23 national security legislation down our throats? RENNIE MARQUES, Mei Foo Pleasant public housing It is certainly more lucrative, from the government's point of view, to sell valuable sites to property developers than to build public housing on them ('Guidelines for picking housing-estate sites on the way', May 22). Some tenants' groups claim this will deprive the poor of the chance to live in a pleasant environment. But estates built on expensive sites - defined mainly by harbour views and convenient transport networks - are not necessarily pleasant places to live. At least, great views are not enough to make a place pleasant. Components such as space and adequate recreational facilities are also essential. If public housing is built on expensive sites, it will be difficult to achieve these requirements, mainly because of space limitations. Besides, the government is likely to be hesitant about building facilities on sites with high land value, which earn a key component of its revenue. It is more likely to be willing to provide recreational facilities and bigger flats on cheaper sites, such as in new towns, where space is not a premium. Therefore, rather than depriving the poor, building public housing on cheaper sites could enable them to enjoy better living environments. ERIC CHU, Tsing Yi Descent into savagery In 'Disabled climber defends walking past dying man' (May 25), New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark is quoted as saying: 'It's a complex tragedy with a lot of issues you have to weigh up when life is in the balance.' In fact, Ms Clark, it is a simple issue of life and death. Perhaps one person alone could not have saved a life but a group of people may have succeeded. The value accorded to life is the fine line between civilisation and savagery. British climber David Sharp has died and his loved ones will have to live without him. New Zealand double amputee Mark Inglis is alive and will have to live with his conscience, as will all those others who walked past Sharp in their descent to savagery on Mount Everest. ARIADNE HUEFFMANN, Sai Kung Fat cats squeeze expats I am obliged to respond to the misrepresentations in two recent letters, 'Poor fat-cat expats' (May 22) and 'Bush-whacking for blogs' (May 25). Both indicate that US expatriates have enjoyed exemption from taxes and are angry at the prospect of losing it. In fact, the US is the only country in the world to levy an income tax on citizens living abroad. The first letter sarcastically hints that only overpaid 'overseas flag-wavers' who voted for George W. Bush will suffer. Again, the opposite is true. After six years of slashing taxes paid by the ultra-rich like themselves, Mr Bush and the US Congress now propose to increase the burden for their record deficit on the one segment of Americans with no voice in Congress - those living abroad. To borrow a phrase from the American revolutionaries of the 1770s: 'Taxation without representation is tyranny.' To squeeze the unrepresented while feeding more cream to the fattest cats is, quite simply, unconscionable. It is another in a litany of disgraces committed by the Bush administration. REUBEN M. TUCK, Shek O
