Lan Kwai Fong bars need competition I refer to the article in Lai See by Howard Winn, "Lan Kwai Fong bar owners step up campaign against 7-Eleven" (January 22). He is not happy about it because he sees it as unfair competition. It is rather beyond me why requiring convenience stores to get licences will make it fairer. Perhaps it is fairer as far as licensing requirements are concerned, but it is only a fairness issue for the sellers, not the consumers. It leaves me wondering why Winn is so concerned about protecting the bars' interests, rather than the consumers'. As a consumer, I am certain Lan Kwai Fong's bars will continue to charge a high premium for their drinks, irrespective of whether convenience stores need to bear the cost of getting a licence. The bars in Lan Kwai Fong operate almost like a cartel. It is expensive everywhere in that area. If they succeed in driving the convenience stores away, there will simply be more overpriced bars in that area. Drinks will not become more affordable simply because the cheaper outlets disappear. Competition is a good thing in general as it keeps a check on prices. Whether convenience stores should be required to get a liquor licence is not the real issue here; the commercial interests of the bars is what's at stake. They just cannot stand the competition offered by alternative outlets who do business in a different way. And why do we continue to look to Singapore when we think we need more regulations? The island republic is good at fining people and subjecting businesses to all sorts of restraints. Do we want the same in Hong Kong? Winn certainly knows where he chose to live. And please do not create an impression that the bars are vigorous in ensuring that no minors drink in their premises. Anyone visiting Lan Kwai Fong on Friday nights and weekend evenings will tell you there are suspiciously young faces there enjoying themselves, probably using fake identity cards. Underage drinking is not just a convenience-store problem, but blaming it on rivals is of course a convenient thing to do. Keith Peterson, Mid-Levels Promote love of books for our young I read with great interest David Dodwell's "Demise of Dymocks may not signal end of books after all" (January 29). I think that e-books are not the problem; the real problem lies in the increase in rent, which booksellers have to pass on to consumers by raising the prices of the books they sell. People in Hong Kong still greatly love books made of paper, but they cannot afford to pay the price. Proof of that are the crowds we see every year at the Hong Kong Book Fair. Therefore, people are resorting to ordering books online, and not only e-books, but also in paper. They pay less for them than in a city bookshop, even adding the shipping costs. A solution to this problem could be a simple one. The government should create a "book city" right in the centre of Hong Kong Island or in Kowloon, perhaps using one of the old buildings set to be demolished, and then provide a rent-free lease to all booksellers. In so doing, our government will get a badly needed boost in popularity and it will be an investment in the future of the young citizens of Hong Kong. Angelo Paratico, Sheung Wan Let's face it: Beijing has control of HK I am writing about the letter by Alex Woo, on "Why Beijing says chief executive candidates must 'love China'" (January 26). Mr Woo stated a paramount truth: Hong Kong has no right to choose its own chief executive. It is clearly stated in the Basic Law, Article 45. The central government must choose candidates who are pro-China. This means Hong Kong has no hope of democracy and a genuine election. In the Sino-British Joint Declaration, China had promised Hong Kong that it can remain unchanged for 50 years. Eighteen of these years have passed, and the mainland has started to try and neutralise the differences between Hong Kong and China. For example, the white paper on the practice of "one country, two systems" was an attempt at such neutralisation. However, the more Beijing does, the more discontent the people of Hong Kong feel. There are 32 years left to 2047. China wants to control Hong Kong gradually, and it makes Hong Kong people resentful. If we are rich enough, we can migrate to other countries. If not, what we can do is face the reality that we have no hope. There is no law in the world that says what we want must come true. If we fought but failed to get what we want, then we must admit the reality. I understand that some are still trying to bring a democratic future to Hong Kong, but I am afraid that too many protests may lead to a repeat of June 4. Christy Ma On Ni, Tiu Keng Leng Who to blame for incinerator mistake? The letter from Dr Martin Williams ("Government will not give up primitive waste strategy", January 20) gives a brilliant perspective on the problem that has engulfed the government of Hong Kong. Does anybody in the Legislative Council study, any longer, the implications of what they are approving? Or do they just have "love of the government" without any realisation of their accountability? A time capsule should be buried in the grounds of the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator with all the relevant papers and the names of everyone who has contributed to the decision. This is necessary so that when it is decommissioned, people can be told who the deaf administrators and who the wilfully blind legislators were who ignored the developed world's growing understanding of the economics of what used to be called "waste". They will also learn who it was that placed no value on Lantau, which, because of its truly unique ecology, has been called a treasure of China. Conversely, they will learn who truly loved China and Hong Kong. S. P. Li, Lantau Inaccurate food labels will mislead Are Hong Kong labelling laws so lax that they allow Kowloon Dairy to sell a product purporting to be Australian whole milk whilst the product lists ingredients as: water, Australian whole milk concentrate. Effectively, this is a processed milk product, yet it is displayed in the fresh milk section of Wellcome stores. Wellcome should ensure that its suppliers provide clear information for the products listed. Kowloon Dairy should ensure this product is not marketed as fresh milk and label it "concentrate", rather than misleading customers. Phillip Walker, Wan Chai IDD charge applies if call is answered I refer to the letter by Angus Hardern ("PCCW phone bill was totally unacceptable", January 22) regarding IDD charges. HKT would like to clarify that an IDD call will only be charged when the distant network sends back a "call answered" signal. The "call answered" signal is generated when the call is picked up by a person, a private answering device, or answered by phone / voicemail / fax switch equipment at the distant end. The signal will be generated when the circuit is established, even though a person may not be speaking at the other end. The Office of the Communications Authority has also issued a consumer reminder on its website (under the "Consumer Focus" section), advising that consumers may be charged when the call is diverted to a voicemail box, fax machine or an interactive voice response system. C. K. Chan, head of group communications, HKT Sceptics of climate change rely on proof I refer to the letter by Lee Sai-ming ("We must deal with climate change now", January 28). Mr Lee requests an "authenticated source of counter-evidence" to support the view that climate change - formerly known as "global warming" - has any basis in fact. I would refer Mr Lee to the 321-page report by the Climate Depot website, dated December 8, 2010, in which more than 1,000 scientists from around the globe countered the media hype on the subject. These scientists included current and former members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their numbers have been growing significantly over the years. John Steventon, Lantau
