Balancing privacy and free speech
The recent Law Reform Commission report on regulating covert surveillance in Hong Kong has brought the issue of an individual's right to privacy to the forefront. It recommends making it a criminal offence to trespass or use spying devices on private property to get personal information.
There is no doubt the existing legislation inadequately protects individuals' right to privacy, especially in comparison to privacy laws in other jurisdictions. There is clearly an urgent need to change the law.
At the same time, my concern for the right to privacy crosses my concern for the right to free speech. Take the Tsim Sha Tsui shoot-out and the request of Constable Tsui Po-ko's wife that her family be left alone because they have been through enough already. I truly sympathise with her and her family. At the same time, I want the media to be able to investigate such issues and get to the bottom of it all.
While the protection of privacy may impinge on freedom of expression, the abuse of freedom of expression may infringe on the right to privacy. The new legislation will have to provide an adequate framework to balance these rights properly and carefully.
Currently, the inadequacy of privacy protection has skewed the balance, and our media friends have exceeded their duties and impinged on privacy.
There are very few times when I feel the need to know details of a celebrity's intimate life. I suppose we also have to question the poor taste of readers who persistently crave such gossip.
HILDA CHAN, Ho Man Tin
Not ready to retire
In her persuasive letter 'City's well-qualified retirees willing and able to fill skills gap' (March 31), Elsie Tu argues that a large pool of wasted talent can be drawn from people forced to retire at 60. I am completely in agreement. It is very encouraging to see her fighting for something so necessary, especially when the government ignores an issue that has been debated and agreed upon in many developed countries - that is, that people should be allowed, and indeed encouraged, to work well past the age of 60.
Ms Tu argues that many 60-year-olds are physically fit, well-qualified, experienced and eager to continue.
May I give a personal example. I recently received a letter from the human resources officer of the English Schools Foundation to say that my services as a mathematics teacher at Island School would not be required after the summer of 2007, when I turn 60, because it is the ESF's policy to ask people to leave as soon as their contract allows after their 60th birthday.
I am physically fit, have missed only one full day of work due to illness in my 31 years with the foundation, am obviously experienced, have a Master's Degree in Education, and would love to continue in a job which gives me great satisfaction and enjoyment.
Ms Tu goes on to say that early retirement can create financial strain as many retirees still have families to support. This is very true in my case. I am the sole supporter of a 10-year-old daughter, whose mother lives in Thailand. I also have a son in full-time education in England.
It is obvious that the ESF is enforcing the retirement-at-60 policy because it is financially expedient to get rid of longer-serving employees. Their contribution to school communities, the rapport they have established with students, the results they help obtain ... all these count for nothing. What is important is to save money.
This, I submit, is a very shortsighted, heartless attitude.
I, for one, will not accept it. I ask others close to 60 who do not want to stop working to join me in protesting to the government and to institutions such as the ESF in whatever ways they think fit, so that this pernicious retirement policy can be changed.
CHRIS STUBBS, Mid-Levels
Arabs are Semites too
I refer to the article 'US and them' (April 1), which says the United States' pro-Israel policy is the main - and largely diversionary - factor behind the 'war on terror' and even an important factor in the invasion of Iraq. The article, by American academics John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, inevitably questions the construct of the US war against al-Qaeda. But it also challenges the lie behind a perverted success of Israel and its lobby in the US: the misuse of the term anti-Semitic. The article says 'one of the most powerful weapons' of the Israel lobby in the US is the charge of anti-Semitism, and 'anyone who [even] says there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism'.
Here my ally is the dictionary. Look up Semite and Semitic. A Semite is a Middle Eastern person, an Arab or a Jew. A prominent American of Arab descent has observed that it is impossible for him to be anti-Semitic because he is a Semitic person.
Why has the Israel lobby pushed its version of 'anti-Semitism' so much, so that it has obscured the Middle Eastern meaning of the term? It underscores the case for the Israelis as the people of the Middle East.
Of course, the term is staunchly anti-democratic - its proponents imply Israel is beyond discussion.
WAYNE MORRISON, North Point
