One aim of the government's plan to create positions for politically appointed deputy and assistant ministers is to train up political talent. But will these appointees play a part in the democratic development of Hong Kong or will they serve in an executive-led government that has no interest in democracy?
Consideration of Hong Kong's colonial past shows there is no need to have political elites in an executive-led government. The colonial government was executive-led, with the key officials all civil servants. After working in different government departments, they were promoted to senior positions and became policy secretaries. They were effective and efficient administrators, but they were not politicians. Nonetheless, under this liberal but undemocratic system, colonial Hong Kong achieved magnificent economic development and its residents lived satisfactorily.
If the administration today wants to continue this mode of executive-led government, it should rely on elites from its pool of administrative officers. If its plan is to train up the city's pool of political talent in a move towards democratisation, it should remember that the people of Hong Kong lived happily without democracy under British rule.
Rather than spending $62 million a year on a two-tier political system, why doesn't the government allocate the money to narrowing the gap between rich and poor? If you offered people democracy, on the one hand, or substantial economic benefits, on the other, what would Hong Kong choose?
ERIC CHU, Tsing Yi
Bird flu remarks bode ill
I have serious doubts about the suitability of Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun for the position of head of the World Health Organisation ('Beijing to bankroll bid for WHO post', July 31).