On other matters ... Your news item 'Dentist gets warning for putting up two signs' highlights perfectly the farcical situation Hong Kong dentists find themselves in with regard to the Dental Council's archaic and anachronistic regulations on canvassing and advertising. Surely the Dental Council should be far more concerned about trying to stamp out inappropriate and negligent dental treatment than wasting taxpayers' money pursuing ridiculous actions such as the one detailed in your article. Most western countries (including the US and Britain) relaxed regulations on dental advertising years ago, with the only proviso being that it should be decent and honest. As a result, dental awareness has increased dramatically and the public has a much greater understanding of what modern dentistry can offer. In contrast, the Hong Kong public is faced with a cloak of secrecy - dentists are not allowed to produce informative websites, display information about services and so on. In its code of professional discipline, the Dental Council claims that advertising is a 'source of danger to the public'. I think most people would agree that being kept in the dark about services available, including prices charged for treatment, is far more dangerous. Surely it is now time for the Dental Council to enter the 21st century and accept that the current regulations are wholly inappropriate and allow the dental profession the same freedoms that are enjoyed by lawyers, doctors and other professional service providers in Hong Kong. Dr Philip Newsome, Associate Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong After watching the 'Bus Uncle' video described in the Sunday Morning Post, (May 28), I felt sick and sad. I was recently on the receiving end of a similar tirade. Recently at my residents' club, a man left the sauna without closing the door. I asked him to kindly close the door next time because the heat escapes, and pulled it closed behind him. Seconds later, he burst in and I received a similar Bus Uncle rant, full of expletives and racial slurs, that railed on about how I'd better 'watch it' and 'if you gweilos don't like it here, you should all go home'. I think a deeper exploration of borderline personality disorder or bipolar depression in the story would have been helpful so that friends and families of these bus uncles can identify the symptoms. Too often those close to bus uncles believe they're the ones who sparked this rage and walk on eggshells around them, when in reality it's a mental disorder. Finally, I must disagree with the 'teaser' on page one that labels Bus Uncle as 'the argumentative accidental hero'. The real 'hero' here is 'Alvin', who is calmly assertive about Bus Uncle's rudeness on the phone, and then displays uncommon restraint and dignity throughout the tirade, apologising several times. While the world snickers and draws its own negative conclusions about Hong Kong people from this, it's the image of Alvin this city should be trying to attain and uphold. Name and address supplied I would be interested to hear KMB's view of the Bus Uncle episode on board one of their buses. What is the company's advice to passengers who find their journeys being disturbed by fellow passengers who insist on talking at volume and length on their mobile phones? Jill Taylor, Ap Lei Chau I refer to your article, 'Cathay loses appeal over payout to attendant' (May 24). I don't understand how Cathay Pacific could have thought it had a glimmer of a chance of a successful appeal, especially when considering the obviously defective/unsafe design of those food carts. The carts appear heavy and cumbersome, and seem to have few safeguards for the hard-working cabin crew that have to use them. I have to admit a strong feeling that justice had been served when I read that this company had failed in its appeal. Furthermore, when will the seemingly never-ending downsizing of remuneration and benefits, and increasing of working hours cease? How can this company expect a high quality of service or service from the heart under the conditions it has created? Name and address supplied My wife and I were with a tour group that travelled through several cities on the mainland, and then we visited Hong Kong on May 16-19. We visited several of the traditional tourist sites in Hong Kong, and then decided to walk along Nathan Road. During this walk, we, as westerners, were singled out and constantly confronted by very aggressive vendors who wanted us to purchase various items. These vendors stood in our path, touched us and belittled us if we did not listen to them or when we told them 'no'. At one point I became so frustrated, I started to be verbally aggressive towards the vendor, until my wife stopped me. We found this behaviour very offensive and violated our right to privacy. We told other western tourists of our experience in Hong Kong and advised them to avoid the Nathan Road area, especially the south end. We are aware that the city of Hong Kong is concerned that tourists leave with a positive impression of their time in the city, and we feel that aggressive vendors along Nathan Road leave a negative impression on tourists. Even though I enjoyed my time in Hong Kong, the one experience that I recall the most is my negative experience along Nathan Road. When I tell my friends of my travel to Hong Kong, one of the things I pass along is the way I was treated on Nathan Road. Wade Baker and Cora Guy, California
