bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

additionalInfoBoxes

quizIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

Should the full smoking ban be delayed?
We all know that smoking harms our health. It  affects not only smokers but people near them through secondary smoke.
Smokers are always claiming that they have the right to light up, but non-smokers also have the right to breathe fresh air.
I think the ban on smoking in bars should not be delayed. The authorities must show their determination to the public.
If the smoking ban is delayed this time, I fear there is a strong possibility that there will be a second and even a third delay.
The authorities should not allow any delay, because the sooner the total ban on smoking is implemented, the better it will be for the health of Hong Kong residents.
Bar owners should bear in mind that the ban will only adversely affect their businesses in the short term.
This is because  non-smoking customers will be attracted to smoke-free bars.
Smokers will still come, because they want to meet  their friends.
It's hoped that over time, they will get used to this and they will eventually give up their habit.
Kathleen Ng Pik-yue, Diamond Hill
I refer to the letter by P. A. Crush (Talkback, December 6), where he represents himself as a member of the non-governmental organisation and charity Clear the Air and makes uninformed statements regarding smoking.
Clear the Air agrees with the state of California that tobacco smoke is a toxic air contaminant and pollutant akin to diesel fumes and thereby contributes significantly to air pollution, damage to public health and poor air quality.
It welcomes members and donor sponsors to join our (tax-deductible) charity who have a common interest in furthering all the society's objectives to protect Hong Kong's air quality and public health.
The organisation dissociates itself from Mr Crush's opinions, made in his capacity as a bar owner ['I have a very small residual interest in an English pub']. He resigned from Clear the Air two years ago.
Mr Crush said that [over 23 years in his pub] '95 per cent of the staff were smokers and wanted to smoke while on duty'. It should be pointed out that only 11.6 per cent of Hong Kong people are regular smokers.
The executive committee of Clear the Air fully supports the statements of James Middleton, chairman of its tobacco control committee (Talkback, December 2), since it is our society's objective to reduce air pollution from all sources, indoor and outdoor, to improve public health.
Christian Masset, chairman,  Clear the Air
Should domestic-violence laws cover same-sex couples?
Controversy surrounds the Domestic Violence Ordinance with regard to whether or not to 'include same-sex couples living together' ('Uproar at having gay couples under domestic violence law', December 9).
People may have very different viewpoints regarding same-sex couples; however, I agree with independent legislator Paul Chan Mo-po  that a separate law should be drawn up on violence between same-sex cohabitants, as they did not fit the ordinance's definition of a family.
It is by far the best solution, as it would protect homosexual couples against violence without legalising same-sex marriage. Human rights will still be protected.
However, I hope there will be more public consultation by the government before any decision is made.
Fiona Wong Hei-man, Tseung Kwan O
Should poor families receive subsidies for extra-curricular activities?
The demand for extra-curricular activities has risen in recent years, with parents enrolling their children in a range of activities.
However, a growing number of poor families are not able to afford them, which has led to a call for them to be given subsidies.
Extra-curricular activities are important to children's development, but not that important.
Even though students can benefit from after-school programmes, academic study must always take precedence over such activities.
Our government already offers a more-than-adequate 12 years of free education, and should not also bear the responsibility of subsidising extra-curricular activities, many of which are freely available in schools.
We are experiencing a serious recession as a result of global economic turmoil. Given the problems Hong Kong is experiencing, there are far more important issues at stake than subsidies for extra-curricular activities.
We must all tighten our belts. These days it is about making savings rather than seeking subsidies. The public should now be in the process of tightening their belts.
There is a far greater need for our government to use its resources to tackle the economic downturn, rather than focusing on providing activities which have questionable value for the participants.
Alwyn Li, North Point
What do you think of the Discovery Bay ferry plan?
Discovery Bay residents are furious about the tactics employed by HKR International   in the so-called ferry service revamp survey.
From the start the company has not provided key figures to justify its proposed pricing scheme for ferry fares, such as oil-price assumptions, finance costs of the fleet and maintenance cost of idle ferries.
Residents need to be in possession of these figures  to assess whether the operating deficits are caused by  unavoidable expenditure increases or ineffective management and a poor business strategy.
HKRI has been used to making healthy profits from property sales aided by the provision of a convenient transport system that loses money.
With its present business model, it is no longer able to offset this deficit because the property market has slowed down.
Discovery Bay residents are the ones who suffer from this failed strategy and it is time to end the monopoly and allow other operators to get involved.
Joseph Lee, Discovery Bay



Talkback