RTHK must have genuine editorial independence
RTHK is a government department, long-established and modelled on the BBC, a public broadcaster that enjoys editorial independence.
Indeed, RTHK's own published vision is as a 'public broadcaster', its mission is to 'inform, educate and entertain', and one of its 'values' is that of editorial independence. But as a government department, RTHK is funded by government revenue, and therefore the Hong Kong public. So it can be argued that RTHK is responsible to the public of Hong Kong.
Do the people of Hong Kong want an official government broadcaster which decides what is broadcast and what is not, which prohibits or discourages government criticism, which denies or restricts freedom of speech - particularly on matters the government deems to be sensitive - and which churns out propaganda and applies censorship (political or otherwise), as in many authoritarian systems?
Or do the people want a public broadcaster funded by the government (that is, the public), but which is independent of the government, with genuine editorial independence, including the freedom to criticise the administration when it is deserved, and with a charter to 'inform, educate and entertain' (note the last word), and which caters to the majority, the minority and the minorities? I believe the Hong Kong public would prefer this concept.
The time has now come to corporatise RTHK, to make it into a true public broadcaster, as was proposed in the 1980s but eventually dropped in the early 1990s for political and financial reasons.
Now that Hong Kong is a special administrative region, operating under the principle of 'one country, two systems' and permitted a 'high degree of autonomy', and now that our economy is well on the road to recovery, those reasons no longer exist.
Hong Kong can afford to corporatise RTHK if there is a political will to do so.
JOHN SHANNON, Mid-Levels
No Patriot Act for UK
In view of the horrifying events in London, I hope the UK does not follow the example of the US and enact a Patriot Act, which holds the community to ransom for atrocities committed by a few rotten apples.
All eyes in Commonwealth nations are on London. Indians hope the UK will stick to the laws of ahimsa, or 'non-violence', as taught by Mahatma Gandhi, and adhere to the principles of secularism enacted in India's constitution as a parting gift from England.
In spite of its parliament being threatened by cyclical acts of violence, India has refused to follow the US example and has not implemented patriotic-type laws. But with England, it has a different relationship.
To India, mother means a lot. Indians will make sacrifices for their motherland, and might even go as far as changing the constitution for the sake of the 'Queen Mother'. So, England, please do not allow the sun of secularism to set in India.
LAL DASWANI, Tsim Sha Tsui
Trouble in Olympic split
I see a possible crisis for the mainland following the announcement that Hong Kong will host the equestrian events of the 2008 Olympic Games.
I am sure that many cities in mainland China - for example, Shanghai - want to host the Olympic Games in future. Making a commitment during the bidding to host all the events, and then directing one event to another city without prior notice may create an image of cheating and cause International Olympic Committee members to cast doubt on the integrity of other cities in China if they want to host the Games.
For Hong Kong, it was bad news for the city's athletes, who will be forced out of the Sha Tin Sports Institute for the next three years. Contingency plans meant to ensure the quality of training were not discussed, agreed upon or planned with the athletes.
Although it is understood that holding the equestrian competition could enhance our trade, this top-down approach does not bring fair play. Officials should have a contingency plan with trainers and athletes to relocate them to a suitable training venue - as good as or better than the Sha Tin Sports Institute.
The welfare of athletes for the Olympics and Paralympics should not be overlooked because they represent Hong Kong. Also, if I were a visitor to Hong Kong during the equestrian events, I would like to see how athletes were trained - ideally at the Sha Tin Sports Institute.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Environmental claims
Contrary to what John Bruce claims ('As John Wayne said ...', July 11), rejecting arguments out of hand is not a tyrannical, fanatical reaction.
Rather, it is just a commonsense way of dealing with wild environmentalist claims that sometimes worm their way into the public arena. In that context, I reject out of hand his claims too. Further, Mr Bruce wants to see how environmentalism in the hands of statists has killed millions, without using the 'standard diversionary tactic of bringing new examples to the table'. Exactly how can someone show something without a range of appropriate examples?
I will indulge Mr Bruce this time by referring him to my first letter, in which I said green opposition to DDT and genetically modified food has killed millions of people a year, even though months of US congressional hearings and various studies found DDT to be safe. Governments shaped by environmentalist philosophy now ban DDT as a matter of course, despite the genocidal effects of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. There wasn't the technology to stop the diseases that killed off some American Indians, but there isn't that excuse today.
SIMON PATKIN, Quarry Bay
God loves us all
I support legislation forbidding the discrimination of homosexuals, and the campaign to eventually allow gay marriage. Greg McCarthy's letter 'Marriage alternative?' (July 11) uses the typical arguments made by opponents of gay marriage.
Both he and the Church claim that homosexuality is a choice. Currently, scientific evidence on this question is inconclusive, yet most research suggests that a combination of genetic and environmental factors is at work.
As a church-going Protestant, I understand that God loves all He created. If homosexuality is even partly genetic, and thus determined by God, there is no reason to deny them equal rights. Even in the unlikely event that homosexuality is just a chosen lifestyle, Mr McCarthy fails to notice that religion (and non-affiliation) is also a choice. Yet, religion is afforded respect and legal protection not given to homosexuals.
He further refers to traditional, heterosexual marriage as serving 'nature's self-evident, universal purpose' to procreate. But as countless couples, such as Christine Loh Kung-wai and her partner, can testify, some people are unable to have children. Others do not want to burden themselves financially with children. Should these couples be banned from marriage as well, so that only those who are able and intend to have children can marry?
Most importantly, perceived 'truths' on civil rights change over time. Mr McCarthy claims that America's founding fathers did not address the question of sexual orientation because they 'did not see the need to question its logic'. However, they also excluded any mention of women or racial minorities. If we only support institutions 'based on nature's self-evident purpose', we might as well live in the Stone Age, with nature's laws on food and shelter (and children for some).
GRACE WONG, Aberdeen
Humorous plates
It is over a year since the personalised car licence plates scheme was introduced. One car owner either has a great sense of humour or is oblivious to the rivalry between German automakers. I recently saw a Mercedes Benz in Kennedy Road with a BM1 plate.
ROGER EMMERTON, Mid-Levels
