Director of Administration Elizabeth Tse Man-yee says the government 'respects public aspirations to preserve our harbour' ('Public heeded on Tamar', June 9). But respecting public aspirations is a million miles from taking action in accordance with public wishes, and just as far from reality. The reality is this: in Hong Kong's brief history, more than 3,000 hectares, or almost half, of Victoria Harbour has been filled in. The government is in the process of destroying a further 600 hectares with its Central, Wan Chai, Kowloon Bay, Green Island, Kowloon Point and Tsim Sha Tsui East reclamations, and Pier Nine development. Far from respecting public aspirations, it is most disrespectful to the people of Hong Kong for government representatives to be economical with the truth. Ms Tse is not the only person high up in government trying to persuade us that 'harbour beautification' schemes like the massive desecration in Central and at Tamar are about something other than millions of tonnes of concrete, office space and a new highway. Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen Ming-yeung has said: 'We know our harbour is our greatest asset.' Perhaps I could understand his complicity in destroying our harbour if he had no idea it was our greatest asset. By his own admission, he does know. Yet, he supports its destruction anyway. By acknowledging 'public aspirations to preserve our harbour', Ms Tse admits that the people of Hong Kong do not want to see their harbour ruined. Yet she, too, seems content to oversee its destruction. Ms Tse, please don't insult our intelligence with fatuous statements designed to confuse 'respect' for people's aspirations with your concrete (pun intended) plans to ignore them. The evidence that you do not care at all is overwhelming. PETER SHERWOOD, Discovery Bay Tamar slate unclean In his article 'Tamar's environmental clean slate' (June 12), Michael Chiu Tak-lun writes that the Advisory Council on the Environment studied the issue of air pollution at Tamar in April, and 'concluded that there were insufficient grounds to revisit the environmental impact assessment (EIA)'. The acting director of environmental protection also concluded that the Tamar project 'would not create a street canyon effect - in which vehicle emissions are trapped between tall buildings'. As a member of the advisory council, I have raised the issue of air quality. At a meeting in April, I pointed out that leading air-quality experts had questioned the way the EIA ignored the street canyon effect and assumed the entire reclamation area would be a flat surface. I suggested that the council invite some of these experts to attend a meeting to help it understand the debate better. Although the council decided it would be inappropriate to revisit the original EIA formally and to invite such dissenting experts to address it, the Environmental Protection Department's air-quality experts agreed to meet them outside the council. Only one member at the meeting expressed doubt that the Tamar project would create a street canyon effect. This is very different from Mr Chiu's assertion that the council concluded the Tamar project would not create a street canyon effect. Far from being 'studied', the matter was only briefly discussed. The fact remains that the Central reclamation is a road-driven project. The government's argument that the Central-Wan Chai bypass is an 'overriding public need' that justifies filling in another slice of our harbour illustrates, yet again, the way road-building drives Hong Kong planning. Outside the arcane workings of the EIA process, the logic of the man in the street, as well as the experience of urban planners around the world, is that additional roads create additional traffic, and traffic causes air pollution. MARKUS SHAW, chairman, WWF Hong Kong Evidence of foul air I refer to Michael Chiu Tak-lun's fulsome endorsement of the much-criticised Tamar project ('Tamar's environmental clean slate', June 12). Apart from being unimpressed by his conclusions, I was struck by his assertion that, 'thanks to measures implemented in recent years, roadside quality in Hong Kong has been improving'. I don't know what measures and which roadsides Mr Chiu is referring to, but I suggest he gets out of his chauffer-driven government limousine and waits for a bus outside City Hall - or takes a walk through Causeway Bay. I am much readier to believe the evidence of my own bronchial problems, running nose and irritated eyes. It is a pity that the schoolchildren who demonstrated recently against Hong Kong's filthy air were not made aware of the 'improvement in roadside air quality'. If Mr Chiu is correct, then they and their teachers were worrying needlessly. B.J. CARROLL, Ap Lei Chau No space to play Letter writer Bonnie Chan suggests people may be willing to spend long hours in the office because of a lack of enthusiasm for anything other than work and materialistic pursuits ('All work and no play', June 12). When your extended family lives in an inadequately insulated estate apartment of 400 sq ft, there is little inducement to hurry home from work, and shopping offers an air-conditioned respite. Hong Kong will never be a world-class city until housing and standards of personal living space are raised. Private developers would do well to improve their products and reduce their advertising hype. Hong Kong workers deserve better. Y.P. HO, Wan Chai Passive passengers Your report on the Yichang city bus crash last week in which three Hong Kong people died quoted a number of survivors as saying the driver was going too fast ('Three HK tourists die in mainland bus crash', June 9). The travel industry is reportedly urging people going on mainland tours to play it safe by taking out travel insurance. But that is akin to getting an ambulance ready and waiting at the bottom of the cliff. This crash is one of many needless, fatal accidents in the news in the past few months reportedly caused by speeding. Sadly, it reflects a culture of apathy and passive acceptance. Surely, the best way to play it safe is for travel agents, tour groups and passengers on speeding buses to stand up without fear and demand that reckless drivers drive at safe speeds. WILLIAM MILLER, Sheung Wan Scrutinise buyout plan I agree with letter writer Jimmy Chan's assessment that Cathay Pacific Airway's takeover of Dragonair should not be considered a normal business transaction ('Dragonair buyout means less choice for passengers', June 9). Cathay is a commercial company with profit maximisation as its ultimate goal, governed by a board of directors who share the same motivation. It is protected by government policies that suppress competition, and is not required to pay any premium to the government for being the sole beneficiary of favourable policies. It is customary for companies enjoying such largesse, such as the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation and the MTR Corporation, to be governed by management boards that include government representatives. There is no such presence on Cathay's board of directors. If there was, Cathay would not get away with some of the nebulous practices it adopts for Asia Miles and its shoddy habit of assigning passengers defective seats and operating aircraft with broken air-conditioning or parts that fall off in mid-flight. I strongly urge the government to exercise more scrutiny in this takeover instead of leaving the approval process to the stock exchange authorities. CINDY YEUNG, Tin Hau Ku Klux Klan condoned A picture in the South China Morning Post on June 12 shows members of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups gathered at a rally in Sharpsburg, Maryland, in the United States. How could the US allow such a demonstration in the name of freedom of speech? Arguing that the US constitution protects people's right to hold such views effectively condones such extremist opinions. This is rubbish. In Germany, it is a crime to refuse to acknowledge the atrocities caused by Hitler's regime. Neo-Nazi rallies are illegal. Is that lack of freedom? Absolutely not. It embraces the integrity of a new generation of people in Germany with multicultural and more tolerant perspectives. Does 21st-century multicultural America really condone the racist and bigoted views of groups like the Ku Klux Klan? AMIT SINGH, Central
