Commentator Frank Ching writes that many 'experienced' legislators will not run for office in 2008 after seeing their pay cut six times in the past seven years ('Pinching lawmakers' purses', October 24). Well, you know what, Frank? Great. I can think of few useful things the Legislative Council has done over these years, and you do not mention anything of merit to back your plea for their pitiful plight. As far as I can tell, many of our politicians are self-serving toadies to Beijing and big business. They constantly get it wrong on everything from a legal minimum wage and traffic congestion to anti-smoking legislation and air pollution. Just days after Ching's appeal, your paper published the findings of the Catholic Monitors' damning annual report on legislators' performances ('Functional constituencies lead on worst performers', October 27). Its list of the top 10 offenders shows many cannot be bothered to attend sessions, move motions, ask questions or vote. Of course, there are exceptions to the norm, but I doubt they are the ones whining about their pay cheques. Our chief executive preaches strong governance, but what it really equates to is 'money talks'. Businesses and lobbies wave cash and favours in front of noses and any stupid idea of the day gets rammed down the public's throats. Does the Tamar saga ring a bell? Where is the strong governance on air pollution? Well, sadly, the answer is simple: fixing our air will hit the pockets of the people who indirectly control our politicians. Do these people deserve a raise? Perhaps someone should ask the thousands of workers in this city slaving away for less than HK$3,500 a month what they think. JAMES WARREN, Tsz Wan Shan Record of ineptitude Reading your insight and letters pages lately, one could be forgiven for thinking Hong Kong is actually self-governing in a totally haphazard way. It seems to stumble from one issue to the next without any tough decisions made, under a continuing absence of leadership. One problem is that the government and its various departments keep coming up with poorly researched schemes (which makes one wonder why these bureaucrats are employed at all). One cannot blame the Legislative Council or the public for kicking these back. The list of fiascos is getting longer and longer: the Article 23 legislation, the West Kowloon Cultural District, the goods and services tax proposal, The Link Reit, Tamar, a minimum wage... This is not a record to be proud of. However, I feel sure that it would only take a slight adjustment for things to proceed more smoothly. Positive decision-making seems to be all that is required. For example, why can't the government withdraw its unpopular GST consultation and replace it with a new proposal for raising revenue? J.R. PAINE, Chai Wan Workers' interests In 'Put vested interests on the spot' (October 26), Michael Chugani suggests that the 'bloody fight' feared by the chief executive over a minimum wage is most likely to be caused by those who 'always put the interests of the business lobby above those of the overall community'. Isn't that the reality in politics? After all, people only vote for those they think can protect their interests. Whether or not you agree with it, mutual exploitation makes the world go round. If Mr Chugani, editor-in-chief of ATV English news, would care to rewind recent newsreels, he could watch again major employers righteously rising to the occasion at the press conference for the Wage Protection Movement - proposed in lieu of legislation. I have no doubt that these companies do not want to be seen as exploiting workers - although I cannot be sure if their subcontractors pay decent wages. Since the chief executive acknowledges that minimum wage legislation to control this exploitation cannot be rushed through without careful consideration, the government should at least take action against bad subcontracting practices. Surely, this would offer protection to workers while Hong Kong tries out the voluntary wage scheme. ALEX TAM, Sai Kung In favour of Phaetons Those calling on the government to ditch its contract to buy 36 luxury VW Phaetons in favour of hybrid cars may have overlooked some fundamental considerations ('Deal on luxury fleet proves policy is hot air', October 24). German law requires motor manufacturers to take back disused cars and recycle as many parts as possible. It also requires that these parts be manufactured using the least energy-consuming processes and materials in the first place. It is my understanding that Volkswagen designs all its models with these aims in mind. In assessing the bids received for the April tender, could the government have taken these hidden environmental cost savings into account? What is more, with 3.2-litre engines, I'd be surprised if the Phaetons guzzle more petrol than the BMW 735iLs they are to replace. Of the two hybrid car models sold in Hong Kong, one looks too cheap and the other too vulgar to be VIP transport. Letter writer Greg Wong Chak-yan suggests buying hybrid cars from Volkswagen (October 24), but I'm not aware if it makes them. PETER LOK, Heng Fa Chuen Come clean, Mr Tsang Donald Tsang Yam-kuen recently declared that the small particles coming from the mainland do not affect our health but our perceptions 'that the air is not as good as before'. We are appalled by this piece of misinformation. No informed person today can honestly believe that the all-too-evident reduction in visibility in Hong Kong is not due to increasing air pollution that threatens the health of everyone living here. And Mr Tsang, many of the small particles you refer to are emitted here, rather than coming just from the mainland. What is more, much of what does come from the mainland is produced by Hong Kong-owned factories. It is true that, in Hong Kong's marine setting, visibility is at times affected by harmless mist. Yet it is undeniable that the deterioration in average visibility in recent years is largely caused by increasing pollution. Mr Tsang, please come clean and admit publicly that the loss in visibility is a sign of the threat to our health. If the public is misled on this point, how are you and future chief executives to build community support for the tough measures that must be taken to protect our health? If the government truly believes that the position we have laid out here is inaccurate, and that Mr Tsang's statement on visibility should be accepted, we hope his office, the Environmental Protection Department, the Observatory, or whatever source he got his information from will reply in these columns. We look forward to reading the response. BILL BARRON and ALEXIS LAU, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and ANTHONY HEDLEY, University of Hong Kong Genocide a fact In 'Penetrating the haze of truth' (October 23), Philip Bowring writes: 'Facts are facts, and sooner or later they penetrate most skulls.' Well, he has some catching up to do on the facts about the Armenian Genocide. He wrongly asserts that 'most of the evidence points not to government-directed massacres but to spontaneous, communally led killings'. The fact is, what happened to the Armenians in Turkey in 1915-1923 was government-directed genocide. That's according to the US ambassador in Istanbul during the first world war, eye-witness accounts from missionaries, documents in the state archives of many nations, press coverage at the time, several judicial tribunals, the UN definition of genocide (1948) and Centre for Transitional Justice (2003) - to mention a few sources. Despite 90 years of deliberate falsification by the Turkish government and its hired 'historians', the Armenian genocide is established historical fact. Twenty-eight states have formally recognised it, including many European nations with ties to Turkey who have the moral courage to transcend an inconvenient truth. Turkey's persistence in suppressing this truth has forced the hand of states like France into resorting to legislative means to silence further falsifications. ARTIN ARZOUMANIAN, Montreal, Canada Lifting the veil Having given the debate on Muslim veils some consideration, I believe I can offer a rational explanation as to why former British foreign secretary Jack Straw was perfectly correct to suggest wearing them made community relations more difficult. Above race and religion, all people are just that - people. If an individual chooses to identify with a particular group, he or she should not be surprised if that group is viewed with fear and suspicion when a tiny minority within it begins bombing transport systems and issuing threats of further death and destruction. Mr Straw realises that the veil, a barrier to communication, exacerbates that fear. To point this out to those who choose to raise that barrier is merely stating fact. Whether anyone lowers their veil as a result is up to them, but at least they now have a little more insight into its negative effect on community relations. BRIAN HART, Sai Kung
