Advertisement
Advertisement

Tsang must prove his free-market credentials

I refer to Tony Latter's column ('Tsang: a champion of free markets', March 24).

The manipulation of interest rates by hedge funds did not justify the manipulation of the stock market by the government. As Mr Latter, who worked for the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, should know, the HKMA failed, over 15 years of running the peg, to anticipate the possibility of such manipulation and to implement the 'seven measures' that it subsequently adopted to dampen the interest rate mechanism. That was the solution, and intervention was not.

By investing $120 billion of taxpayers' money in the market with the stated goal of pushing up prices, acquiring some 15 per cent of the free float of the Hang Seng Index, the government forever lost its reputation as one of the few Asian governments that did not intervene in the market. Now whenever prices slump, there is a market expectation that the government may act as a safety net, and this expectation in itself distorts the market.

As for acting Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's free-market credentials, I shall only believe that when I see him table a comprehensive competition law to break up the cartels that run this town. For now I am willing to believe that he was an instrument rather than decision-maker in the market intervention - rumour has it that certain tycoons in 1998 were facing foreclosure on their pledged controlling shareholdings, and leaned on former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa to intervene.

I am also willing to believe that the decisions announced in Mr Tsang's budget speech of 1999 to award Cyberport to Richard Li Tzar-kai and a cruise terminal in North Point to Cheung Kong (later scrapped), both without competitive tender, were probably driven by Mr Tung. But the culture project in West Kowloon is far more identifiable with Mr Tsang. We wait to see whether he now recognises the flaws in the single-developer, subjective beauty parade he is arranging and switches to a market-based auction of land parcels within the project, with an overall statutory corporation to own and operate the public facilities on the rest of the land.

DAVID M. WEBB, Mid-Levels

Liberal dose of reality

I was amused that the Liberal Party (according to Secretary Vincent Chin, 'Liberal principles', March 24) 'do not care to please' people like me. As I'm a banker, a past chairman of Cambridge University Conservatives, worked for various vice-chairmen of the Conservative Party and had core members of the Thatcherite revolution as friends, he should be worried I'm not persuaded by his party.

I have nothing against the Liberal Party being pro-business and rooting for one of its own. I only feel that to do so while claiming a conveniently principled position that contradicts best legal advice, smacks of opportunism, just as to deny anti-trust laws are a boon to a nation's consumers and economy smacks of excess favouritism to business.

I have never denied the National People's Congress' right of interpretation. I just prefer the constitutional way. If the merit of sticking to the clear wording of the Basic Law is rejected, interpretation or amendment is better than government fiat for changing its meaning.

Constitutionally, the Hong Kong courts can interpret the Basic Law, even in areas where the central government is ultimately responsible. Neither the Liberal Party nor justice chief Elsie Leung Oi-sie is giving us the whole story when they say the NPC's ultimate power of interpretation precludes Hong Kong's courts interpreting the Basic Law.

I respect James Tien Pei-chun's courage in standing up on Article 23, and I even referred favourably in my letter to Mr Tien's support for direct elections (Mr Chin, seeing enemies everywhere, ignores that). If the Liberals do not care to please people of my conservative background who support some of their policies, how will they ever get to govern, except through rotten boroughs?

PAUL SERFATY, Mid-Levels

A right to live

Your leader ('No place for politics in right-to-die case', March 23) on Terri Schiavo starts out on balance then takes the predictable 'left' turn by misrepresenting the specifics of this case.

For starters, Mrs Schiavo, while severely disabled, is conscious and is not on life support. Rather, her disability interferes with her ability to eat, hence the necessity for a feeding tube. Mrs Schiavo does not have a living will. The basis for her husband's claim is a verbal affirmation of her desire to die which has been widely disputed by numerous individuals including a nurse who has cared for Mrs Schiavo.

In the absence of a living will, the courts must surely err on the side of life as enumerated in the United States' constitution; 'Life, liberty, et al.'

No matter how cleverly those who argue for Mrs Schiavo's death couch the terms, she is, in fact, being starved to death. In any other case, this would constitute cruel and unusual punishment - which is expressly forbidden in the US constitution.

To get a broader perspective on this case it should be made widely known that the husband has for several years now taken up with another woman with whom he has fathered two children. This begs the question why did he not simply file for divorce so as not to further complicate matters. What has not been widely reported is that the husband stands to gain from a wrongful death award, not to mention insurance money, upon Mrs Schiavo's death.

If he had divorced her he would be entitled to nothing.

To make the assertion that President George W. Bush and the Congress are merely playing politics is cynical. What you label as intervention is contravened by Article 3 of the US constitution, which confers on the Congress the ability to regulate jurisdiction.

Republicans are simply responding to what is, in their view, an out-of-control, activist judiciary that finds 'rights' where none are enumerated in law.

GARRY HUNT, Mid-Levels

Bus noise addressed

We refer to the letter from Richard McGeough ('Bus TV still too loud', March 22) regarding the volume of programming on Route 115.

Route 115 is a cross-harbour tunnel route jointly operated by Kowloon Motor Bus with another bus company. Notwithstanding this, upon receiving his valuable feedback, we immediately conducted an inspection of all of the buses that we deploy on this route, to check that the broadcast volume is set at a comfortable level.

Please be assured that we have taken a number of measures to ensure that the volume of the programmes is accommodated within the existing sound level inside the bus.

If passengers have any concerns about the volume on a KMB bus, recording the licence number of the bus concerned and referring the matter to us will result in checks being conducted and adjustments made to the sound system as required. SUSANNE HO, Kowloon Motor Bus

Use teaching assets

Recently the South China Morning Post has published a number of readers' letters and articles outlining the difficulties facing parents of children with learning problems and physical disabilities with regard to access to suitable educational facilities.

Surely, with the declining number of students at some Hong Kong schools, now would be the ideal time to address this issue.

Instead of closing schools with low attendance levels, the focus should be on how to adapt some of the overcapacity to ensure that no child in Hong Kong is denied his or her right to a free education.

Surplus teachers who express interest in teaching students with difficulties could be sent on special training programmes.

CANDY TAM, Wan Chai

Lesson from Sevens

Returning to the Hong Kong Rugby Sevens this year, I pondered what has changed since 1997. The 'Sevens' is still an allegory of all Hong Kong - a joyous gathering of talented people flying in from all over the world, striving to win. But this time some of the zing was missing.

I never considered Hong Kong was run by the British - they provided security and an excellent legal framework and left you to get on with business. Hong Kong was actually run by entrepreneurs. People like the Sevens crowd.

So I wondered what would bring those people back? Not shopping. Not to 'Live it. Love it'. Not because it's 'Asia's World City'.

The answer literally flashed up in front of my eyes. The 'World's Freest Economy'. That's it.

The new masters should remember that.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Post