In its first report on principles and practices governing civil service pay (1979), the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service recommended 'that the remuneration of the lowest paid in the civil service should not be governed solely by market forces ... the government should be among the better-paying employers in relation to the lowest paid'. The objective was to achieve equality of benefit, not equality of detriment, for both private and public-sector workers. In recent months, your paper has reported that despite the economic upturn, 30 per cent of Hong Kong workers earn less than $7,500 monthly, and even then they may have to work a 15-hour day.

It seems that 'big market, small government' does not distribute the vast wealth of Hong Kong as optimally as the principle recommended by the standing commission in 1979.

MICHAEL SCOTT, The Peak

Vow to protect maids

I wish to comment on the letters headlined 'Conflict over maids' (June 18) and 'Staff to fit maids policy' (June 19).

Let me set the record straight that the 2,326 labour claims from foreign domestic helpers handled by the Labour Department last year were civil claims. We have offered a conciliation service in all these cases and have reminded our staff to be compassionate and prudent in dealing with the helpers concerned.

As for the case mentioned in the article 'Maid was urged to ignore death threat and get on with job' (June 16), our labour relations office did follow up on the concerned helper's request for assistance and provided a conciliation service to her and her employer. As a result, the claim against her employer under the Employment Ordinance was settled amicably.

On prosecutions, the department secured 34 convictions in summonses against employers of foreign domestic helpers for breaches of the Employment Ordinance in the first five months of this year. This exceeds the 33 convictions for last year. Among those 33, an employer was heavily fined - $44,000 - for underpaying her Indonesian helper. All this underlines our efforts and determination to protect the labour rights of foreign domestic helpers and bring unscrupulous employers to justice. I urge any foreign helpers who are deprived of their statutory or contractual entitlements to approach us and come forward as prosecution witnesses. We do not, and will not, tolerate any abuse of helpers.

MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, permanent secretary for economic development and labour

Stiff fees for helpers

Your readers should know that: first, a newly arrived Indonesian domestic helper has to pay $21,000 (handling fees and commission) to an agency, seven times her salary. From this, you can tell the monthly earnings of Indonesian helpers over a two-year contract - they are poor - and do not argue, deviously, that they are still better off than in their home country.

For a domestic helper, $327 is the maximum commission she should pay to an agency. But, ironically, the payment of the $21,000 is made in Hong Kong and is to be deposited in a company's bank account in seven consecutive equal instalments.

Second, employers should realise that the Indonesian consulate requests that the renewal of an employment contract (with the same employer) be handled by a local agency. This burdens an employer (who I believe in most cases will exploit the maid to absorb this fee) with unnecessary charges ranging from $3,000 to $4,000. I wonder if this infringes any employment ordinance?

Third, employers should check if their new helper has her passport back, as well as the original of the employment contract, when she arrives to start work. It was not until I took my helper to the bank to open an account that I found her contract had been kept by the agency and she had only a copy. When I made enquiries, it promised to return the contract to my helper immediately.

Fourth, I am not sure if this is a norm in the industry (and, if so, the new committee of the Equal Opportunities Commission should speed up preparation of anti-racism legislation), but the policy of one top bank openly discriminates against domestic helpers - only they are required to present a Hong Kong identity card together with a passport to open an account.

ADRIAN CHAN, Happy Valley

Disney refused students

Here's to you Mr Robinson, Disney loves you more than we all do ...

Tell me why, Mr Robinson [Disneyland Hong Kong group managing director Don Robinson], you and your public relations team refuse any contact with a polite, environmentally aware group of Year Nine students from West Island School, who wish to hand in a petition expressing concern over the inclusion of shark's fin soup on the menu.

I wish to voice my horror at your company's discourtesy, unhelpfulness and lack of sensitivity. Is it really necessary to block phone calls from a 13-year-old, who wants to make an appointment to hand in a petition?

Are you really that afraid of a group of secondary school students?

JULIA BLOIS-BROOKE, Discovery Bay

Mortgage changed

I read with interest the article 'Village people seek equal rights' (June 15). In essence it said that village houses in the New Territories are not eligible for a 90 per cent mortgage through the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation's insurance premium.

In 2002, I purchased a house in Sai Kung, obtaining a 90 per cent mortgage from Standard Chartered Bank. The bank said the house was eligible for the mortgage insurance premium, and that the mortgage corporation said it was not a village-type house, but a villa. I purchased the house, knowing that on resale a 90 per cent mortgage would be an attraction.

When I decided to sell the house, I lined up a buyer who was drawn by needing only a 10 per cent deposit. But Standard Chartered told him the house was not eligible for a 90 per cent mortgage. The bank said it had changed its policy, and this was a village house. The mortgage corporation had changed its criteria. I have asked Standard Chartered for this in writing, but have had only a vague reply.

SOLID KWAN WAI-KWAN, Sai Kung

Introduce sales tax now

Your Leader 'We must not go soft on economic reform' (June 14) is correct to warn the government not to take its eye off the ball concerning its sources of revenue, just because the fiscal situation appears rosy. It is widely recognised that the salaries tax is unfairly narrow, the profits tax ineffective, and that property-based revenues are volatile. Introducing a sales tax is a prudent step. Taxing business income rather than profits is more efficient. Businessmen will resist any income or sales tax as it is much more difficult to avoid than the profits tax. This is why it should be introduced post-haste.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED