Public Eye
Would you like a tax rise with those fries?
Okay, we're done with hurling marshmallows. Public Eye is now going to play hardball. We've had enough of the gibberish being spewed by big business to avoid paying Hong Kong's hard-pressed workers a decent wage.
The latest to talk nonsense is Duncan Abate of the Employers' Federation. He was on the radio this week recycling the same old junk that a minimum-wage law would actually hurt workers because bosses would cut staff. Are you saying, Mr Abate, that bosses would rather fire their workers than pay them a fair wage? Are you saying that bosses would only hire workers if they could pay them slave wages? Bosses fattened their own wallets while the economy boomed but opposed a minimum-wage law.
Now that we have a global financial tsunami, they say wage protection is untimely. The Employers' Federation shamelessly cited a study suggesting that even if we set the minimum wage at a paltry HK$4,500 a month, bosses would still fire 20,000 workers for every HK$100 above that. Think about this. Hong Kong's bosses would rather save HK$100 a month than reward the workers who slave to make them rich. The workers demanding wage protection include cleaners, security guards and the kids who work in fast-food restaurants. Go ahead, fire them. Who are you going to get to serve you your burger or clean your toilets? Robots? Bosses say instead of a minimum-wage law the government should guarantee workers a minimum income by propping up their slave wages with handouts.
That's right, employers want to use your tax dollars to subsidise them. But even if we use the public purse to dole out dollars to underpaid workers, where will the government get the extra money? Public Eye has the perfect idea: why not raise the taxes on big business?
Bars that bar should also be barred
Is it really true? Is our government really going to get tough and shoo away all those pesky mobile phone salespeople who obstruct our busy streets with their makeshift stands? Good. Public Eye is all for a firm government hand in cracking down on violators who block our footpaths. But before we salute the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department for its resolve, we have a question: what constitutes obstruction? Why only mobile phone salespeople and not the bars in Lan Kwai Fong, Wyndham Street and Soho that flout Hong Kong's obstruction, food and noise laws with impunity? Public Eye dares the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to dish out equal treatment. Why not start by checking out a well-known establishment on Wyndham Street near the LKF Hotel that has actually installed mini-tables on government-owned traffic railings? Its customers obstruct the entire public footpath, where they are served food and drinks. Music blares from outdoor loudspeakers until the early morning. Why chase after helpless hawkers and not crack down on these well-to-do law-breakers? If the government has the guts to do something about this, Public Eye will gladly provide names.
Animal rights are a pet peeve
Public Eye won't quarrel with the rights of judges to wear their wigs, high-heeled shoes and dresses, even though it all looks silly. But we will quarrel with Deputy Judge Charles Wong's ruling that dogs are innocent; that they're not to blame when neighbours slug it out over their barking. No, your honour, dogs are the culprits. If they didn't irritate with their constant yelping, neighbours would get along just fine. Judge Wong sided with a dog owner who had been ordered by his building's management to get rid of his pest. Oh, all right, to get rid of his pet. He ruled that residents had a right to keep pets to enjoy in their homes. The law has spoken. Don't blame Public Eye if you're kept awake by your neighbour's goldfish swishing in its bowl. You could keep a cat and argue that the only way you could exercise your right to enjoy your home was to have it eat the fish next door.
