I REFER to the letter from Lee Hung-kwong, the Vice President of the Society of Registered Safety Officers (SRSO) headlined, 'Simply unworkable' (Sunday Morning Post, January 21).
I was 'simply astounded' to read what amounted to whining protectionism from an organisation whose members have benefited so much from the subject of their attack namely; 'overseas registered safety officers' (ORSOs).
For lay readers this definition refers to expatriates who have met the legal requirements to become registered and operate as a 'safety officer' in Hong Kong.
Despite the precise language used in its letter it seems that the SRSO has confused ORSOs (and other unregistered but very competent expatriate safety men) with some other well-known but, mercifully few, expatriates who claim to be safety men by virtue of their inflated titles rather than their ability.
As I am one of a very limited number of ORSOs, I take particular exception to being told, by implication, that my ability to be effective in accident prevention is questionable. The executive committee of the SRSO, comprises, in general, experienced safety officers who hold some of the top safety jobs in the territory. Some of them are involved in high level policy discussion on the subject of occupational safety and health in Hong Kong.
So they should be aware of the very limited supply of registered safety officers who are experienced enough to properly advise management on the current exceptionally high level of construction activity. Given this, assumed, degree of awareness the SRSO is in a position to understand the absolute need to import expatriate safety practitioners to assist in the safe completion of the works. I am very surprised to note the weakness of the SRSO's arguments and objections. I am even more surprised, and very concerned, at what can only be described as the political and possibly racial overtones its letter contains.