F**k Artisan Water

Madness is... a HKD80 (USD10) bottle of water.

Apparently, that's what some restaurants are charging these days for bottled water. Not only do they charge an outrageous price, but they damn near force you to order it.  If you want water, you have to order the silly artisan bottled water. Otherwise, you're just going to have to go thirsty while eating that meal.  What happened to the days when water was free at restaurants?  

I'm a drinker.  I'll have beer with my pizza and wine with my steak, and I'll pay for it.  But I absolutely hate having to pay for ridiculously expensive water that comes in an environmentally unfriendly bottle.  It is stupid.  I feel like I'm being cheated.  The water costs HKD10 in the store, so they're making a profit of HKD70. That is seven times the retail cost.  

Sabatini's in the Royal Garden Hotel has the right idea.  They serve bottled water, but it is included in the meal.  Now that is service, and service that I will gladly pay more for.  

Cheapo

Even when it comes to charity, HSBC is a cheap bastard.  

In an attempt to offload some of my HSBC credit card bonus points, I chose to donate them to the Community Chest. Then I found out that you need 25,000 points to donate HKD100! That's a 0.4% return since one dollar spending equals one point.  Normally I would accept this if it were a cash back return scheme, but this is a donation.  I expect the bank to be willing to give a little more when it comes to charity. Oh well, I guess I'm just more naive than I'd like to think.

Countdown Continues

Nearly two years ago I foolishly discovered that most restaurant bars did not ban smoking because they were able to claim "bar status".  Banning restaurant smoking in 2007 was a great leap for Hong Kong, but bars were still off the hook for another two years. Since then, I have been silently counting down the days until January 1st 2009, when smoking will be banned in bars as well.

Only 23 more days left until the full ban comes into effect.

Sadly, not every establishment will adhere to the new policy.

• "Upstairs Bars" will ignore the ban the best they can by instructing customers to smoke in stairwells (already illegal), or they may ignore them completely by continuing to allow customers to smoke.  
  


• Smaller, less prominent bars on the ground level may try to ignore the ban as well. Their success will depend entirely on A. The bar's popularity, and B. Whether anyone files a complaint. If a bar is popular, there will be more people filing complaints, forcing the bar to follow the rules.  
  


• Karaokes should have banned smoking since 07, but it appears that they are ignoring the law. They aren't saying it is okay to smoke, but they aren't doing anything to prevent it either.  They're basically turning a blind eye, and providing makeshift ashtrays when requested.
  


• As for massage parlours (where smoking is still allowed until 09), I have no idea what they will do.  They are also usually located "upstairs", and it will be difficult to enforce a smoking ban just like the "Upstairs Bars".
  

It appears that not many people are all that interested in fixing these problems. Government officials feel that it isn't their problem.  The Tobacco Control Office doesn't have the manpower or incentive to enforce the new legislation.  Owners of bars and clubs fear that banning smoking will turn away customers.  Non-smokers have either stopped going to these places (like me), or pretend it doesn't bother them.

So how can we finally make Hong Kong smoke free? Here are some ideas.  Increase the manpower of the Tobacco Control Office, and give them an incentive to hand out fines. Make it a quota system where the more fines they hand out, the more salary they will receive.  Have them work in tandem with the police.  Make the smoking fines a larger amount to cover the cost of TCO officer bonuses.

When you raid enough karaokes, bars, and clubs, people will learn not to smoke there and eventually become accustomed to it.  People putting out their butts before TCO guys can hand out tickets?  Have officers pose as party goers, and conduct random raids.  Don't tell me this can't be done.  The Department of Health did the exact same covert type operations when the order came down to clean up littering in Hong Kong.

If you're going to make such a drastic rule change, you have to come down hard in the beginning. Does the government want to give the people another reason to call it weak?  Nobody said this task would be easy, but it it nothing new.  Many other cities have banned smoking already, Hong Kong has no excuse not to.

This is the world we live in

Having made HKD1 billion in profit last year (and 500 million for the first half of this year), TVB decided to layoff 212 employees in this time of turmoil.  Their reason is that they must be responsible to their shareholders.  

TVB's decision probably makes sense on paper. With publicly listed entities, the shareholder is king.  I guess I could sympathize with the layoffs if TVB was barely breaking even, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  I just want to know when enough is enough.  

I certainly have no right to judge TVB's decision.  Perhaps they are planning for the gloomy outlook in upcoming years.  Only they can project how much revenue next year will bring.  

The TVB layoffs have brought to attention the subject of shareholder responsibility vs. social responsibility.  Naturally, to stay attractive and keep investors coming, TVB wants to show shareholders that in times of turmoil, they know how to make the tough, unpopular decisions to keep that profit margin.  Strictly business minded people will applaud this, stating that it keeps Hong Kong investment opportunities attractive.  

On the other hand, where does it end?  Shareholders are not the only ones fighting their way through a bad economy.  The ones at the bottom of the ladder always suffer the most.  When does a company put a hold on the profit margin, and decide to take care of their own people?  I'm sure corporations understand what they are doing when they put people out in the cold in this economy.  They have just never experienced it themselves.  

No one is saying that we should tell TVB (or any other company) how to run their business.  I'd like to ask, do investors only care about profit?  If that were the case, nobody would care about child labor, poor working conditions, and minimum wage.  If profit was the sole purpose of investing in a company, these issues wouldn't even be discussion topics.  Can corporations look past the money and see the significance of social responsibility?  Can investors do the same? People don't like the words "social responsibility".  How about just calling it "taking care of your own", or "living through the thin as well as the thick".  There will always be money to be made, but at what expense?  

Furthermore, is TVB's reputation in the public eye at all important?  Make an unpopular move, and there could be consequences (though likely minor consquences).  

Personally, I would much rather put my money in a company that took care of society as well as their investors.  A company that blindly cares about profit (especially in times like these) is not a company I would support.