Advertisement
Advertisement

Letters

We must defend the spirit of free speech in HK

I am surprised that Jackie Chan got so much criticism from the public and media for his so-called 'anti-democratic' remarks ('Flak flies over Chan's vision of freedom', April 21). There have been calls for Chan to be removed as one of the ambassadors of the Summer Deaflympics in Taipei or 'dumped as tourism ambassador' for Hong Kong. He is accused of abandoning the [principles of ] freedom.

However, what is the spirit of freedom? In my opinion, being able to speak out freely is an important part of freedom.

In a system where freedom of speech is firmly established we should not be afraid of differing voices. There should be a proper debate on this issue, but what we have seen in Hong Kong and Taiwan is an overreaction. If it is believe that Chan's remarks could undermine this city or Taipei, then it proves that their democratic foundations are too fragile. Besides, Chan was not talking about politics or legislation, he was referring to creative film-making.

I think Chan's remarks show that the spirit of freedom of speech and democracy is thriving in Hong Kong.

He is a Hongkonger who has spoken his mind, which is his right. However, perhaps he was unwise not realising that as an international star he should choose his words carefully.

Xu Yuanyuan, Kowloon City

Brickbats for Jackie Chan

Jackie Chan not only owes Chinese people everywhere an apology, he particularly needs to take back his words about Taiwan and be enlightened about that democratic island-nation ('Action star's comments are way off target', April 22).

The freedom-loving Taiwanese people may have a rambunctious government, but everyone knows many democracies can be messy affairs.

Compared to China's oppressive regime which many flee from, Taiwan is a bastion of liberty and equality.

Chan, more than anyone else, should appreciate that fact, being able, as he does, to spout nonsense as he did and not get imprisoned.

He deserves all the brickbats that have been hurled his way.

Beatriz Taylor, Cheung Chau

Countries are negotiating

I refer to the article of Vartan Oskanian ('Turkey misses golden chance with Armenia', April 24).

I would like to draw the attention of your readers to the fact that Turkey has been conducting negotiations with Armenia to normalise relations for quite some time.

The process was made public on April 22 with identical official statements issued by the foreign ministries of both countries with Switzerland acting as mediator.

The text of the statement is as follows: 'Turkey and Armenia, together with Switzerland as mediator, have been working intensively with a view to normalising their bilateral relations and developing them in a spirit of good-neighborliness, and mutual respect, and thus to promoting peace, security and stability in the whole region.

'The two parties have achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding in this process and they have agreed on a comprehensive framework for the normalisation of their bilateral relations in a mutually satisfactory manner. In this context, a road-map has been identified.

'This agreed basis provides a positive prospect for the on-going process.'

One wonders whether the article of the former Armenian foreign minister was prepared well in advance to be published on the day of the so-called 'anniversary of those events', but as it stands today, its content is outdated and out of touch with the most recent developments taking place between Turkey and Armenia.

M. Raif Karaca, consul general of Turkey in Hong Kong

Official had to spill the beans

I agree with Simon Ho ('Whistleblower did right thing', April 21) regarding ministerial deputy Greg So Kam-leung.

A name card is just a way to introduce oneself and is not proof of one's income, which would be included in a confidential document.

What Mr So did gave the impression that as an official he had special rights when renewing his maid's contract with the Immigration Department.

He must recognise there is a well-established legislature in Hong Kong where everyone is regarded as equal. In future he must abide by the proper procedures laid down by government departments.

I think the action taken by the relevant official [whistleblower] should be applauded by all Hong Kong people.

I. Wong, North Point

Revamp rethink disappointing

I am disappointed that the tourism project at Aberdeen has been scaled back ('Aberdeen makeover plan cut by 80pc', April 21).

The initial project cost was estimated at about HK$1 billion. The scaling back to around HK$200 million is a huge setback.

The project has been on the drawing board for nearly a decade. But it was not until last year that the government completed the consultancy study which concluded that the plan was not attractive and would not yield economic returns that could justify the cost.

So what has our government been doing over the past 10 years? What exactly did officials have in mind when they initiated the Fisherman's Wharf project?

Although, as I said, I am disappointed, I am not surprised.

H. C. Bee, Kowloon Tong

Common sense

I refer to Chris Mackreth's letter ('Singapore no beacon of justice', April 20).

I am not a Singapore government official seeking to defend the country. I am merely an ordinary Singaporean staying in Hong Kong. Nor am I motivated by patriotism but by common sense.

The Singapore government and even the [ruling] People's Action Party welcomes constructive criticism and ideas to improve the country. However, when comments are made about members of the government which are untrue and libellous, action will be taken. If people understand this no-nonsense approach then they will have second thoughts about making comments which are without merit or untrue.

The integrity of government ministers and the country as a whole must be maintained. A person who makes a comment which is allegedly libellous, should be prepared to back up that comment or face the consequences.

Paul Yang, Yuen Long

Levy will work

I accept that the voluntary 'no plastic bags' campaign can enhance general awareness about the need to use fewer bags. But a direct levy in line with the 'polluter pays' principle is the most effective way to reduce the indiscriminate use of plastic bags.

I believe the mandatory levy [now passed by Legco] just like the smoking ban, can help change people's habits. You no longer see people smoking in indoor public places, which shows this kind of legislation works.

Indeed, there are already many successful examples of a bag levy working in other countries or cities, such as Ireland and Taiwan. After the introduction of the levy there will be a substantial drop in plastic bag usage.

Kwok Hon-lam, Kwai Chung

Post