First entry, and letter being submitted today to the South China Morning Post:

Isn't it ironic that in Hong Kong it is becoming more healthy to sit still rather than exercise? Yesterday's marathon resulted in the first asthma attack I've ever experienced - the density of pollution was obvious to everyone who remembers blue skies. Although its intention is clearly good, it seems Standard Chartered's highly effective promotion and sponsorship of the run in polluted Hong Kong is morally unconscionable if not economically unwise. The fourty thousand citizens encouraged to get out and run may become relatively suceptible to future illnesses that will detract from their quality of life. The suspended respiratory particulates they inhaled on Sunday are now lodged permanently in their lungs, and may unfortunately become their most permanent souvenir of their run.

How does Standard Chartered evaluate the social and economic benefits of sponsoring the run in the context of Hong Kong's notoriously toxic pollution? By withdrawing their sponsorship, the Bank would deliver a long overdue wake-up call to the government that the city's failing environment and its ambitions to be a World City are completely incompatible.

************
With this blog, I welcome your thoughts and feedback as to what we can do to make Hong Kong a clean city again. As the structure of the Hong Kong government allows greatest representation to functional constituencies and their underlying corporates, I think it is imperative to encourage Hong Kong corporates to address their social and political responsibilities to our community. I welcome your suggestions and feedback.