Advertisement
Advertisement

European case suggests two-year term can work

Though it seems quite clear that the Basic Law says that five not two years is the term of the chief executive, the agreement of France and Germany to accept the resignation of the first chairman of the European Central Bank after four, not eight, years in office furnishes an example of a political compromise for a vital position. Widely criticised, it worked out in the end.

If Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, in Hong Kong's top post, were to resign before his term ended, form would be preserved. It might be eccentric (assuming he performed well) for him then to stand for a second term; but if he wished to carry on beyond the 'scheduled' departure date, he could do so constitutionally, as Wim Duisenberg did at the European Central Bank.

Who knows, a five-year term might in due course even appeal to the mainland side of our constitutional framework, if they decide available candidates for chief executive are not mature or appealing enough, or that better progress could be made on the method for (s)electing one if we had the extra time. When a farce is on stage, one might as well aim for a production that leaves the biggest number of people happy in the end.

PAUL SERFATY, Mid-Levels

Tung gave his all to job

I refer to the article headlined 'An ailing Tung is treated by the spin doctors' (March 7).

As leader of Hong Kong, Tung Chee-hwa may not have done a good job. Nevertheless, he gave 100 per cent of himself, working more than 15 hours a day. In 2003, I read that Mr Tung had had only 6.5 days of vacation since he became chief executive in 1997.

Edgar Cheng Wai-kin, former head of the Central Policy Unit and a doctor, says Mr Tung has been under constant attack in the past seven years and has received virtually no praise for his work. I totally agree.

Endless criticism could cause physical and mental impairment. I am sure the people of Hong Kong do not want this to occur. Should the chief executive resign, I wish him a good rest and happy retirement which he richly deserves. Thank you, Mr Tung, may God bless you.

EUGENE LI, Deep Water Bay

People's burden lifted

Lau Nai-keung is at his nonsensical best in the column headlined 'Stepping down at the right time' (March 4).

Saying that Tung Chee-hwa's possible resignation is a rumour that can neither be confirmed nor refuted (hence the term 'rumour'!), he prefers to talk about 'other scenarios' and goes on to make speculations far more outlandish than any rumour of resignation.

Mr Lau professes to know what might be in the minds of Mr Tung, the Beijing leadership and those pesky democrats. Quite a feat - perhaps he should be the next chief executive.

Upon resignation, Mr Tung may or may not 'suffer any longer', but the people of Hong Kong will surely feel a burden lifted, and that's not speculation.

GAURANG THAKKAR,

Chiang Mai, Thailand

School language rights

The column 'Reform in whose interest?' (February 19), by Albert Cheng, described the flaws in the Review of Medium of Instruction consultation document recently issued by the Education Commission.

The document, as expected, endorses the use of mother-tongue instruction in secondary schools, but the education authority has still not compelled several government-managed secondary schools to adopt it. Are we seeing hypocrisy here? If the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) does not enforce its own oft-stated policy on schools directly under its control, why should subsidised bodies which have been trusted by thousands of parents and students over the past decades accept it?

After all, parents pay the taxes which support these schools and they have a right to choose what medium of instruction is best suited for their children, as opposed to political figures who have other agendas and who use education to further nationalistic or jingoistic ambitions.

The document also requires English-medium secondary schools, especially those with linked primary schools, to be somehow responsible for the English standard of their entrants to Form One (the 85 per cent hurdle), even though they are forbidden to test potential candidates for Primary One. Subsidised secondary schools without such constraints are thus able to draw on the best (for example, Band One) students in their district to the disadvantage of the linked schools.

It is unjust to penalise secondary schools with historic and familiar links to primary schools. They must be allowed to accept suitable Form One applicants from these schools, even those less brilliant than outsiders. How else can they promote a spirit of continuity and social harmony so needed in Hong Kong's aggressive society? Isn't that what the 'through train' means? Schools are not factories and students are not just blank numbers.

Parents whose children are in such linked primary and secondary schools should firmly oppose this blatant attempt by the EMB to reduce the number of English-medium schools. The sponsoring bodies of all such schools must remain united and maintain standards to help parents and students reach academic goals.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Retirement age puzzle

The letter 'Employing veterans' (March 2), by J. Charleston, purports to give support to Christopher Stubbs' letter ('Debate retirement age', February 22), which I fully agreed with. Mr Stubbs sought only a clarification from the government on precisely what policy it is following in regard to the question of retirement.

This has also caused me confusion, and an explanation from the government would not be unwarranted. However, what irked me were Mr Charleston's opinions, which seemed to be directed against Hong Kong's younger generation, which he dismissed as 'educated beyond their intellect'. I fail to see how his work on major construction projects in Hong Kong and active membership of leading sports clubs qualify him to say he has 'objective evidence' to comment on retirement (the other subject being the quality of graduates. What this has to do with the retirement age I fail to understand.) Any comment he has on these subjects is, at very best, subjective.

During my 26 years working in Hong Kong on major construction projects in a lead (engineering) position, many graduates have trained under me. I have always found them highly motivated, resourceful, hardworking and responsible, and I have no doubt that they will prove to be a great asset to Hong Kong.

As an ex-national serviceman, I have been pondering Mr Charleston's apparent references to national service and geriatric grenadiers, and left wondering exactly what this has to do with Hong Kong's retirement age. Any debate on the retirement age can only be meaningful if it is based on issues that are relevant.

PAUL GIFFORD, Yuen Long

Property deals

I refer to the letter 'Victim of sales chaos' (March 7), by W. B. Lui. Hong Kong must be one of the most stressful places on earth for an individual to buy or sell a property. Agents are there to get a price that suits them, not the potential buyers and sellers. Behind-the-scenes dealings often leave a bitter taste for those who have to go through the process. How can direct sales from the owner be popularised - the auction system in Australia comes to mind - and when will there be a system in which real professionals work for the interests of their clients, that is, the buyer and the seller? After all, they earn a fee, don't they?

P. H. TAM, Mid-Levels

Post