It is ridiculous that this was never done, as the cemetery is public land and commercial development is not an issue.

Even without listing, however, the historic tombstones and monuments should have been monitored by the AMO. I believe all the inscriptions were recorded in a survey circa 1990, and surely observations were made at that time of broken tombstones, pillars and monuments. The damage to several large monuments, such as the HMS Calcutta memorial, probably occurred over several decades. Has the AMO inspected it once in the past 10 years?

It would appear that the damage to this impressive monument is permanent, barring an expensive restoration. This is yet another instance in a long series of blunders by the AMO and the Home Affairs Bureau (and its predecessors) as the antiquities authority.

There has been persistent negligence and incompetence, combined with arrogance and bureaucratic nit-picking. The layers of red tape and petty requirements and the penny-pinching stance that have been imposed on local archaeologists, for example, have driven several (including me) out of the field.

Yet unqualified stone workers were allowed to patch up these important cemetery monuments .

under no supervision.

This case calls to mind the unprofessional and destructive manner in which many of Hong Kong's Bronze Age rock carvings have been 'preserved'. Refusing to take advice from experts, the AMO authorised several equally damaging attempts to protect the carvings. At Big Wave Bay, near Shek O, a structure best described as a rustic hot-dog stand was put up over a magnificent carving, and a huge block of cement applied to the boulder just below the pattern, destroying forever the natural setting. Even worse was at Po Toi, where not only was a cement platform installed in front but a plexiglass enclosure was put around the carvings, creating a new, potentially damaging microclimate.

Nothing seems to change. However, the main problem is not, as your editorial of May 3 ('Heritage protection a serious business') suggests, the lack of 'a mindset that appreciates and understands what history, culture and the environment mean to our city'.

The problem lies rather in an attitude that refuses to seek out independent expert advice, rejects professional review, manipulates the Antiquities Advisory Board, assigns projects to cronies, and sets its own priorities without listening to the public.

William Meacham, Happy Valley

Is the increase in ESF fees reasonable?

I am surprised the English Schools Foundation will raise fees again this year (primary school 5.4 per cent, secondary 2.9 per cent), after it already raised fees substantially last September (primary 8.9 per cent, secondary 5.1 per cent).

Has it consulted parents beforehand? The ESF's explanation is just not convincing, without it presenting any budget figures. The reason 'to improve education quality' is not sound. It can use this excuse to raise fees every year.

I do not see any improvement; only teachers coming and going with low morale. The ESF is a subvented school system. It is irrelevant and not sensible to compare the ESF's fees with private/profit-making international schools. I know the ESF has millions of surplus yearly. It is just greedy and ignores parents' ability to afford the fees, violating the mission of the ESF - 'to provide affordable English education'. I guess the fees will rise again next year, and the next year.

Maybe it will use our money to build another school overseas. Are parents just helpless in being forced to accept the yearly fee rise? Why does the ESF keep on upsetting teachers and parents?

Name and address supplied

What do you think of students' proficiency in English?

I am saddened by the depth of ignorance in comments made by students and educators in the City section on Saturday.

Two students felt they were not tested completely because a grammar test and proof-reading were not part of the paper. This, unfortunately, must reflect the poor teaching that these students have received, where the English language is treated as an 'object' to be learned by rules, not as a means to communicate and express ideas.

Hong Kong students are usually very good at manipulating grammar items but notoriously poor at using the language to express themselves.

A school principal, Rosalind Chan Lo-sai, complains that 'the test would not be able to identify the best students' and that so many candidates will score high marks that it will be difficult to differentiate between students.

I hope that Ms Chan has been misquoted. Surely an education leader could not display such a lack of understanding of the principles of standard-referenced assessment, where students are assessed in terms of having achieved or not achieved standards rather than being compared to each other. Ms Chan should read the curriculum guide and seek expert guidance on standards-referenced assessment. Ms Chan also wishes to give her better students a 'more comprehensive workout'.

This is, of course, most admirable so better students are offered more challenging tasks. But Ms Chan can only think of doing this by giving them more exams. What about by producing texts, by research and project work, where they can show talent, creativity and critical thinking. Are exams the only way students can excel? Hong Kong needs talented, creative people capable of thinking critically, not intelligent, exam-oriented zombies.

Another principal, Lawrence Lour tsang-tsay, asserts that students taught using the communicative approach don't learn grammar. From such an uninformed opinion, I assume Mr Lour is not an English teacher. Of course, grammar is taught in the communicative approach, but it is taught in context as it arises from what students read, listen to or view. It is not taught as a discreet set of rules to be memorised and regurgitated. Grammar is a tool towards the end of communicating and expressing oneself.

I hope that the views expressed by educational leaders in your article are not those of the majority of educators. Otherwise the future looks bleak for English education.

Name and address supplied

On other matters ...

I would like to congratulate the government departments and others involved in the transformation of the former Wan Chai cargo handling area into the new Wan Chai waterfront park.

The park provides people with a great new waterfront venue, and there are two aspects that add to its success.

First, the design has a theme that is successful. It is a park for dogs and people and the obvious fun and happiness it brings to the dogs and their owners impressed me as a non-dog owner walking through the area. The boardwalk and grass are also materials used successfully and not normally used in public parks.

The second point is that government departments solved a pedestrian access problem by allowing people to walk through the site of the salt-water pumping station. This completes an important waterfront pedestrian link from North Point to the Convention and Exhibition Centre. This same approach should be applied to other government sites that block public access along the rest of the waterfront.

One problem is that there are no food or drink facilities for humans - only for dogs! What a perfect location for a dai pai dong and some of the disappearing motorcycle ice-cream vendors.

It is also a shame that there is no opportunity for contact with the harbour or to access boats.

Ian Brownlee, Happy Valley