We read a great deal these days about what an unhealthy city Hong Kong is - with its air pollution, long office hours and rising obesity rates. But we can take pride in the fact that, when it comes to smoking, our city has a much cleaner bill of health than many.
Less than 13 per cent of Hong Kong's adult population are smokers. That is a lower percentage than anywhere else in Asia, except Singapore. It's dramatically lower than on the mainland, where 66 out of every 100 men smoke.
This is a tribute to both our common sense and to two decades of public education and legislation. That effort has restricted the advertising of cigarettes and warned people of the dangers of tobacco use.
At the Legislative Council, we are bringing in legislation to further restrict smoking in public. It should help make Hong Kong one of the world's truly smoke-free cities, an achievement that will do a power of good to both ourselves and our home city's image internationally. I fully support the thrust and intent of the legislation, and the decision to introduce it in two phases. To be effective, however, laws must be reasonable and enforceable, so it is important that we do not lose sight of some inescapable realities.
From January 1, smoking will be banned in offices and most entertainment venues, including restaurants. People should be able to eat out without being subjected to second-hand smoke, and most people today prefer to dine in a smoke-free environment.
Our restaurants, however, are heavily reliant on the tourism industry, particularly on mainland tourists. We can assume from the statistics that many male mainland visitors will crave an after-dinner cigarette.
They are not, of course, entitled to subject us to their second-hand smoke. But, given their numbers, is it really such a bad idea to allow ventilated, smoking areas in a restaurant?
The proposed legislation gives restaurant and bar managers the power to take action against people who light up, but it also gives them the right to take no action. So, in one venue, a smoker might light up with impunity while in another, he or she might face being thrown out and fined.
A law must be clear, and uniformly applied. If it is applied in one venue but ignored in another, the effect will be counterproductive. While we support the principle, we feel it is unfair to put the onus for enforcement entirely on a venue's manager.
Another provision that might cause confusion and consternation is the suggested smoking ban on public beaches. It is hard to imagine how a smoker on a beach could be regarded as a menace to the health of others. The Liberal Party has researched the situation internationally, and found beach smoking bans only in some parts of Australia. Why, then, should we feel the need to impose such a ban?
People in public housing estates should expect to face limitations on where they can light up. But I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to have small smoking areas, well away from playgrounds and general-use areas.
Our approach must be practical. I agree with a ban in public parks and squares, for example, but there should be small areas - around 1 per cent of the park, as the government suggested - set aside for smokers. This should be done, in particular, for the elderly who congregate there and may find it hard to kick the habit of a lifetime.
Good laws take into account social realities and the practicalities of enforcement. Most of the new smoking legislation that we are introducing does this effectively. But some of it will clearly be difficult to police and enforce, and is overly harsh.
We must draw a fine line: we want the minority to adjust their habits for the good of everyone's health, but not to feel victimised.
Hong Kong's new anti-smoking legislation is a step forward for our city's health. I hope that, as we prepare to implement it, we can work together to make sure it is practical and credible in every respect.
James Tien Pei-chun is chairman of the Liberal Party