The imminent demise of thousands of packaged food products in Hong Kong is causing a lot whining, yet it does not disturb me in the slightest.

With the new labelling law coming into effect in the summer of 2010, products that do not carry the required “1+7″ labels, which declare the total energy value along with seven core nutrients, including trans-fats, will no longer be sold in the Big Lychee. While many folks are complaining that certain products will be permanently off the shelves because it will no longer be economically feasible for suppliers to comply with the law, others are pleased that proper information will finally be available.

Manufacturers simply won’t be able to get away with making spurious claims such as ‘low carbohydrate’, ‘low sugar’ or ‘no trans-fats’, which means fewer dodgy foods in the stores, especially so-called health-food products that are packaged to look good when in reality they are anything but healthy.

For consumers concerned with what they eat, that’s good news; it’s difficult to maintain a proper diet when products are allowed to display misleading or downright false nutritional information. Without this new law too many loopholes would continue to exist, and this city has no shortage of people who would take advantage of them if they weren’t nipped in the bud.

While in the short term the law will cause a reduction in the availability of packaged foods, in the long run superior items will be imported to fill the void. Consumers will be safer and better able to make choices, even if that means an increase in the cost of food products. Eventually the market will stabilize and prices will even out.

Besides, if people truly knew what went into half the things they eat, they’d stop eating them.

One of the biggest complaints people have against the Hong Kong government is the lack of a proper consultation process when it plans anything.

The common feeling is that consultations are either hidden or poorly conducted, a sentiment I share. Were that not the case when a public washroom costing HK$960,000 (US$123,870) was built and then sat unused for six years.

Yet that’s what happened when the villagers of Ma Wan Island were relocated to make way for a residential complex. When the new villages were constructed, the public washroom was also built, despite all the new homes having their own facilities. In other words, the convenience turned out to be a giant waste of money. Residents don’t like having the toilets so close to their home, either.

So why was almost one million dollars flushed away for a 105 square foot potty? Because the government claims the departments involved in the relocation consulted closely with the villagers, while the rural committee chairman says they did not: “If enough consultation had been done and the toilet had been located away from the residential area, I think villagers would have welcomed it.”

There’s no arguing with that logic. Now the Home Affairs Department is consulting with the rural committee to determine whether the toilets should be rented for commercial use or converted into a tourist information centre, which seems rather silly: if tourists had been visiting the area in significant numbers the washrooms would have seen greater use.

If the government is so keen on spending money, instead of wasting even more on the toilet, send it to me.

I’ve got a few debts I’d like to flush away.

But thanks to endless reclamation works, our beautiful harbor is now just 910 metres wide. A trip on the Star Ferry that used to take 15 minutes now takes about seven or eight, but that’s not the only change. The waters are choppier now thanks to the squeeze, making boat trips much less pleasant, especially when anchoring to watch the fireworks during Lunar New Year celebrations.

Instead of adhering to the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, enacted in 1997, the Hong Kong government has invented all manner of excuses to reclaim hectare after hectare in the name of property development, which of course drives the economy. Between 1996 and 2004 some 80 hectares was reclaimed, with another 12.7 hectares of new land to be created between 2010 and 2016. Some people are now saying the government might as well build a footbridge so that people can just walk across the harbour; if the reclamation continues Hong Kong may be forced to rename the waterway Victoria River.

Instead of following in the footsteps of cities such as Sydney, which turned its harbour into a thing of beauty with people in mind, the government has not planned well: the waterfront is piecemeal and haphazard and generally unfriendly to visit, particularly along the Hong Kong side. Feel like taking a picturesque stroll from Central to Causeway Bay? Forget it, because you can’t. And now that the Star Ferry pier has been shoved aside to make way for the Central-Wan Chai bypass (just what Hong Kong needs, more roads and traffic), even that pleasure has been compromised.

But what can the little guy do? Anyone who opposes government reclamation plans can fight them in court, but whoever does had better have deep pockets, because the legal fees will be staggering. Oh sure, the government has promised no more reclamation after the works in Central and Wan Chai have been finished, but it doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to keeping its promises.

If it had, the harbour wouldn’t be so narrow.

You just might possess collateral and not realise it. In fact, if you own a high-end handbag, that will be good enough, according to Yes Lady Finance, a new Hong Kong pawnbroker (also responsible for Yes Man Finance). Those facing a credit crunch can pawn their Louis Vuitton, Prada or other luxury brand bags for 70 per cent of the assessed value in the second-hand market, at 28% interest per annum (regular pawn brokers can charge up to 42 per cent a year).

For example, if your bag is worth HK$30,000, you could walk out with $21,000, with interest at $490 per month ($5,880 per year). However if the loan isn’t settled by the due date, the bag is forfeit; those with sentimental attachment to their Chanels and Guccis will have to work hard if they ever want to see their babies again.

Of course the handbag angle is just a gimmick; it’s really just a way to advertise themselves, according to company owners Wallace Tung Wai-wa and Byron Yiu Kwan-tat, also owners of Milan Station, Hong Kong best-known second-hand handbag chain store. Their real goal is property financing (where the big money is, because they wouldn’t be good Hong Kongers if they didn’t play in the real estate market), as the government has recently restricted bank lending to luxury-home buyers; previously the maximum mortgage on a home valued over HK$20 million was 70 per cent, now it is 60 per cent.

Until they shift to home lending, however, desperate tai-tais and gentlemen with expensive briefcases or courier bags can take advantage of the newest way to get fast cash, and they can do so without resorting to gambling in Macau, or worse, risking the blowback that comes from dealing with triad loansharks.

After all, forfeiting a handbag is better than forfeiting your hand.

When The Ritz-Carlton closed its doors on Hong Kong Island in 2008, everyone knew its absence wouldn’t be permanent.

The luxury hotel was not only making way for the redevelopment of its existing location as a high-rise office building, it was preparing to commandeer the top 17 floors of the 118-storey International Commerce Centre (ICC) in Kowloon, which will make the six-star hotel the tallest in the world (slated for completion in 2010, the ICC will become the fourth-highest skyscraper in the world at 1,588 feet, passing Malaysia’s Petronas Towers at 1,483 feet but still below the Shanghai World Financial at 1,614 feet, Taipei 101 at 1,671 feet, and the monster Burj Dubai at 2,684 feet [figures are for structural height only and do not include radio masts]).

Not only will the hotel become the highest in the world, it will do so atop what will be Hong Kong’s tallest structure, soaring past the 88-storey Two International Finance Centre (pictured) on Hong Kong Island. The two monoliths will form a gateway to Victoria Harbour on its western approach.

With 312 guest rooms, including suites as large as 365-square metres, The Ritz-Carlton will of course feature the usual assortment of restaurants, bars, a spa and club lounge, and a ballroom that will be the second biggest in Hong Kong: a guaranteed draw for events and well-heeled Hong Kongers desiring a lavish wedding banquet.

Expecting to open for business in December 2010, the hotel anticipates filling to 70 per cent capacity via business travelers and loyal Ritz fans. And of course, The Ritz-Carlton will charge top dollar for rooms, so if you want to stay there you’ll need deep pockets.

As the song says, you’ll be spending every dime for a wonderful time.

If you’re looking for major drug traffickers in Hong Kong, you won’t find them among the expatriates on Lamma Island.

The police learned that lesson the hard way after a large coordinated raid of four Lamma Island bars in the wee hours of October 31; more than 60 officers detained pub patrons at the Island Bar, the Waterfront, the Deli Lamma, and Diesel’s for 90 minutes to conduct an extensive search for illegal narcotics on their persons and in their belongings. All the cops came up with was 130 grams of marijuana and 30 grams of cocaine, and arrested just six men either for possession, trafficking or drug use. They also busted a woman and two other men for allowing their bars to become distribution points.

But was the raid worth the effort? Some Lamma Islanders wondered whether Operation Sweep was a waste of time and expense. Had the cops found a few kilos of drugs instead of what appears to be small amounts for personal use they could truly claim success in breaking up what they referred to as an expatriate drug syndicate.

Don’t get me wrong, dealing cocaine isn’t cool and if someone engages in the practice they ought to be charged. But those few individuals who might have had a bit of weed in their pocket are hardly nefarious drug kingpins. Operation Sweep took months of work and in the end netted very little. The police could probably find a great deal more than a few paltry grams in the bars and saunas on Portland Street in Mong Kok on any given Friday night.

Besides, everyone knows the triads control the drug trade in Hong Kong, and when was the last time an expatriate was found to be a member of a triad society?

The idea is to reduce energy consumption and insulate structures, not to mention make them pleasant to behold, a plan that I would support without reservation. Some of the city’s high-rises are well-decorated but many are not; the paint scheme is often less than attractive and after a few years attracts grime and is destroyed by air pollution.

Blanc designed the green wall in three sections: a lightweight metal frame that hangs from the wall creating an insulating air layer; a 1cm thick PVC riveted to the frame for strength and waterproofing; and a polyamide felt layer stapled to the PVC that distributes water and nutrients, eliminating the need for soil. The entire garden is about 5cm thick and weighs less than 30kg per square metre, allowing it to be installed on any size of wall, including Hong Kong’s concrete monoliths.

The main challenge is wind-resistance, given Hong Kong’s vulnerability to tropical cyclones. Blanc would solve that problem through biodiversity, as with his famous green wall at the Musee des Arts Premiers Quai Branly in Paris, which contains more than 100 plant species.

Transforming grid after grid of boring residential tower blocks into lush gardens is an immensely appealing thought that could turn Hong Kong into a modern version of the Hanging Gardens of ancient Babylon.

And the air would be a lot fresher in the bargain.

Go to any optical shop in Hong Kong and you can have your glasses adjusted for free.

In fact they’ll even clean them for you free of charge. At least, that’s how it was before the Hong Kong Consumer Council advised shoppers on an interesting variation of a tried and true scam.

Whenever business gets a little slow it always seems a handful of dishonest shop owners stoop to trickery, usually by luring people into the showroom and then not letting them leave until they purchase something, often at inflated prices.

In the cases recently reported by the Consumer Council, employees at the offending outlets would stand outside and grab eyewear right from people’s faces to force them inside the shop, and then hand them an invoice for adjustments or pressure them into buying another pair of glasses.

So far 2009 has seen five instances of this tactic, compared with eight in 2008. But here’s the part that baffles me. As soon as the employees began to strong-arm the victims into paying for unrequested goods or services, the victims should have called the police.

Yet they didn’t. The question is, why?

It took the Consumer Council’s vice-chairman of publicity and community relations to remind folks: “This is a totally unscrupulous sales tactic. Customers should insist on getting their glasses back and call the police if the shop refuses to comply.”

If some clown tried that with me I’d have the police all over them in two minutes flat. Either that or relieve the store of all their high-end frames.

Hey, if they’re going to steal from me, I’m going to steal from them, just to see how they like it.

Call it an eye for an eye.

Not that I’m the sole tall Caucasian fellow in town, and certainly not the biggest. I was just the first to use the nickname. Chances are you’ve stumbled across www.bigwhiteguy.com, and if so you’ve either laughed or been offended (and if you were offended, lighten up).

There, I’ve done it again.

Since 1998 I’ve recorded my observations in the hope that others would learn more about Hong Kong. I’ve tried my best neither to embellish nor to sugar-coat the truth; I just tell it as it is, or as I see it anyway.

So I’m honoured to have been invited to share my slightly warped viewpoint with you, gentle readers. Eleven years in the Big Lychee may qualify me as a Hong Konger, yet I can never forget that I am and will forever be a foreigner, especially when I step into a crowded, mirrored lift.

But that’s part of the fun: being able to see both sides of the coin, or at least trying to figure out the other side of it. The longer I live here the more I understand I’ve got so much to learn about why folks do the things they do. It’s in these differences that I find the inconsequential and the serious, cooperation and frustration, intelligence and idiocy, delight and irritation.

Oddly the things which drive me mad often seem to provide the most humour after the fact. It’s a bit perverse, yet at the same time we can all relate. The negatives and positives bind us together and make us simultaneously love and loathe this city (but mostly love it).

It’s why we stay a decade, and then a decade longer.

We simply can’t get enough.