bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

What do you think about the smoking ban after a year?
Paul Surtees (Talkback, December 31) provides an excellent summary of the frank failure of the current smoke-free policy legislation to protect large numbers of people from tobacco smoke.
The catering industry, while not fully supportive of the policy, did ask the government to at least give them a level playing field.
They didn't get it, and since then the Department of Health has expended considerable resources trying to deal with manoeuvres to bypass the legislation.
One way of doing this is simply to change the venue's name to include the word 'bar'.
Others pretend they can be non-smoking at certain hours of the day or days of the week when they want to attract a different clientele, including families and offer children's menus.
At the same time they defend their exempted status with spurious arguments about the proportion of their revenue from alcohol sales.
All this is understandable given the vagaries of the  bill and the unequal constraints placed on their ability to compete for custom.
The government will privately argue that covert deals with vested interests were needed to push through the tobacco control bill.
In doing so, they abrogated their duty of care to the workforce and, with over 1,300 exemptions, subjected thousands of workers to irreversible harm to their heart and lung function.
The government ignored the overwhelming global evidence that second-hand smoke kills and that comprehensive smoke-free policies ultimately benefit the hospitality sector.
Mr Surtees rightly looks to make the policy more effective, but the government is now looking at proposals by [legislator] Tommy Cheung Yu-yan and British American Tobacco to create smoking rooms in catering venues.
Nothing could be more damaging to the industry, workers, patrons and the health care system of Hong Kong.
Anthony Hedley, School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong
The smoking ban legislation was partly introduced to get smokers out of  restaurants. But those smokers who are addicted have found it difficult to give up, and so you see them going outside the restaurants to light up.
This is a nuisance for myself and other pedestrians where these smokers congregate.
During horse racing days, I see chain smokers gathering outside the front doors of one of the Jockey Club betting centres. This particular betting centre is at a busy road junction. You can see a huge cloud of smoke at the other side of a pedestrian crossing.
Many of us using that crossing are exposed to this smoke.
I have heard many elderly people complaining to the smokers, but their pleas are ignored.
I have also noticed an increasing number of teenagers gathering in groups on the streets in Hong Kong to chat and smoke and even have a soft drink. Again, they are blocking the way for pedestrians.
I think the situation can only get worse, unless some ground rules are laid down for smokers in the street to follow.  If a solution to a problem is found - that is, getting smokers out of restaurants - but creates another problem, then the policy clearly is not working as it should.  The relevant authorities have to look at this problem and try to resolve it.
Pang Chi-ming, Sheung Shui
On other matters ...
The cultural study tour 'Our Vital Living Past', organised by the Conservancy Association Centre for Heritage, is a perfect reflection of the current problematic urban renewal policies.
The tour attempts to etch the traces of old lifestyles into the memories of the younger generation before such lifestyles are  destroyed  in the name of urban renewal.
The old market in Peel Street and Graham Street will be relocated under the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) plan. This will dislocate the old urban culture of a community-type way of living. The residents will be forced to move elsewhere, and this will dismantle its street-level sociability and community spirit.
It is a shame that Hong Kong is fast dismantling its unique urban culture. If we allow all these renewal plans to be carried out, we will effectively have a 'new' city  in 10 to 20 years. How could we maintain the balance between  the city's indigenous culture and the fast-paced commercially driven urban renewal plans?  So far the URA renewal proposals are far from satisfactory. For instance, they will replace 'Wedding Card Street' with a 'Wedding City', transform 'Sneaker Street' into a 'Retail-Sports City' and turn Graham Street and Peel Street shops into a shopping mall with the theme of 'old-shop street'.
All of these are clearly inappropriate approaches. There is no discernible effort to attempt to keep any of the old elements and balance it with modern lifestyle. The URA demolishes everything, keeps a few pre-war buildings and gives them a slogan that seems to connect to its past and hope that this will disguise the authority's inefficiency in heritage conservation.
It must be remembered that the city should conserve not only the unique shops and buildings that reflect the unique community culture, [but also] the intangible community spirit and old-generation lifestyle  whenever possible.
H. C. Bee, Ho Man Tin



Talkback