Advertisement
Advertisement

Hong Kong bent rule of law for silver medallists

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but as a Hongkonger I am embarrassed by the community's euphoria over the Olympic table-tennis silver medal won by Ko Lai-chak and Li Ching in Athens.

I am also bewildered by senior government officials' statements that they are proud of the result, which showed a rise in the standard of sports in Hong Kong. Are they aware of media reports that the mainland-trained players do not comply with the relevant citizenship requirement, were allowed to represent Hong Kong on an exceptional basis, and that this was not to be taken as a precedent? Or is there no truth in these reports?

Bending the rules is inconsistent with the concepts of fair play and rule of law, both core values in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Olympic Committee should explain why it saw fit to request bending or departing from the rule, a request which might jeopardise our international image. The international body which approved the request owes the sports world an explanation on the justification for doing so.

The above comments should not detract from Ko and Li's outstanding achievement. As sportsmen, they quite rightly seize any opportunity to play in this most important world tournament. Whether the organisations giving them the opportunity were right or wrong, the players deserve our congratulations.

NG HON-WAH, Pokfulam

Consider the poor

I was pleased that the South China Morning Post brought attention to the horrendous levels of poverty in Hong Kong ('Who looks out for the down and out?', by C. K. Lau, August 20).

We are constantly told that Hong Kong is a model of economic prosperity and yet we have more than one million people living below the poverty line. On July 1, 500,000 people marched for democracy. Who marches for the poor? Who marches for the 250,000 domestic helpers who keep the Hong Kong economy afloat by allowing their rich masters to go out to work while they cook, clean and care for their children for slave wages?

If only Hong Kong people cared as much for the rights and dignity of the poorest and most marginalised in our society as they do for the coming election, the word 'democracy' might not sound so hollow. The poverty levels and exploitation of the poorest will not be an issue in the election campaign, as this would threaten the status quo of the plutocracy.

JACK MUIR, Causeway Bay

Reformer's lesson

I refer to the leader 'Still a way to go to fulfil Deng's vision' (Sunday Morning Post, August 22). Deng Xiaoping is admired not because he was a good follower of Mao Zedong, but an innovator who corrected the wrong policies of his time.

The current leaders of the central government will be judged on whether they can put the inadequacies of Mr Deng's legacy right and definitely not just because they are his faithful followers.

TONY CHAN, Tin Shui Wai

Intervention justified?

I wish to comment on the article ''No hidden plan' in border bus policy' (August 17). The dangerous point is not a possible 'hidden plan' to protect KCRC, but government intervention in the market.

I am not against such intervention, but we need to consider the benefit and cost of it carefully, especially when a legal market already exists.

The justification for the change in policy is 'to reduce excessive competition and cut congestion at the Huanggang border crossing', said Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao Sau-tung. Her first point is nonsense, given that cross-border buses are all legal.

Because of their low fares, quick service and comfortable seats, these buses attract a lot of passengers from other modes of transport. This is the result of market competition, a core value in Hong Kong. So if the government wants to 'reduce' competition, it must prove to the public that the new cost of border buses benefits the whole society.

Regarding 'congestion' at the Huanggang crossing - or a hit on freight transport - is this justification reasonable? In my experience on border buses, the most likely congestion point is the parking lot on the Shenzhen side of Huanggang, which may slow freight transport on the border bridge. But there is no obvious impact on freight transport on the Hong Kong side of Lok Ma Chau. Many buses can be accommodated in the park at Lok Ma Chau. Passengers then can use the yellow bus to cross the border bridge.

Has the government considered the pros and cons of all possible arrangements? Why not co-operate with Shenzhen to provide more parking places for buses? Why not lower the yellow bus fares to encourage their use? Any government intervention should be highly guarded.

DANIEL WU, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Land plan hurts public

Although government leaders have repeatedly said they are listening to public grievances, it seems they are not. Note the application by Niceyork to rezone land on the Ap Lei Chau waterfront alongside Phase Three of South Horizons. This land was bought by Shell Hong Kong in 1988, for a liquefied petroleum gas and oil products transit depot, for $17.5 million. In May this year, Niceyork bought the land from Shell for $200 million. Two months later, Niceyork applied to the town planning board to rezone it for a residential purpose, the building of four blocks of 38-45 storeys in front of buildings in Phase Three.

The purpose is to bypass the land-provision policy. If successful, Niceyork will get residential land at far below the market price. The sea views, ventilation and property values of Phase Three residents are in jeopardy. It is like stealing nearly half their assets and ruining their quality of life.

The sea view of 500 Phase Three flats is totally blocked by the proposed development and each flat will lose $1.5 million. Including flats not so seriously affected, the total loss in property values is about $1 billion. Where will the money go? To Shell and the developer, of course.

Residents do not believe they can block the application. The developer must have done a lot of lobbying and negotiating with the government. And no developer would be so stupid as to buy for $200 million, land that can only be used as a gas depot.

The government should require Shell to sell back the site if it does not want to use it for a depot. Otherwise, gasoline service stations will follow suit: all such land will be used for residential high rises. It is time the government shows the public that it is protecting their interests.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Cultural feast ahead

The proposed West Kowloon cultural district is one of the rare times that we should applaud the government. Its vision for an arts and cultural hub for Hong Kong is poised to boost our standing as a world-class city.

Hong Kong's current offering of plays, musicals and cultural performances pales in comparison to those of New York and London. Even Singapore has its Esplanade. I am excited about the feast of events that will be on our doorstep once this development is unveiled.

The government seems to be doing its best to make the project work by extending the tender selection process to encompass a one-year public consultation. So what if the developer is hoping to make a little on the side? This is how the free market in Hong Kong has always prospered. We should get involved to ensure this spectacular cultural hub has a little something for all of us.

JUSTIN WONG, Happy Valley

Living his dream

I refer to the article 'Mummy nearest' (August 20). I cannot believe people are saying that William Hung is humiliating himself and the Chinese people. He has pursued his dream and against all odds he is living it. He is an inspiration to adults and children. He encourages children to pursue their goals and not give up. Dreams do come true if you take a chance.

MICHELE ANN KALISH, South Bay

Post