bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

Should the drug rehab school get the Mui Wo premises?
Apparently more than 200 Nimbys (not in my backyard) protested at the weekend against moving  the drug rehabilitation centre for young people  from Ha Keng to Mui Wo.
Some residents say  that tourists may be put off from Mui Wo as such a centre would dampen its already glowing tourist aura. However, we should be reminded that a five to 10-minute walk from the proposed site to the waterfront will bring you to a concrete mixing plant, a rubbish pick-up point and - wait for it - a sewage treatment plan. What possibly could be more off-putting than a sewage treatment plant on prime waterfront land that  all Mui Wo residents can see? 
Perhaps we should refrain from reminding the Mui Wo Beach enthusiasts. 
At least the centre is tucked away at the back and only those who make a concerted effort will find it. That is to say, the average tourist will notice the concrete-mixing site and the sewage treatment plant, but will never know about the drug  rehabilitation centre unless told.  And if you do tell them, and they happen to be socially minded tourists, it may even improve Mui Wo's image as a caring group of residents who  support the unfortunate in its society. 
Jeff Bell, Discovery Bay
The vacant secondary school in Mui Wo, occupying a prime site near the waterfront, is of crucial importance to the Lantau community's future development. 
The premises are so vast that the Christian Zheng Sheng College [drug rehabilitation centre] would not be able to pay the electricity bills, let alone maintain the premises properly. 
It would also not be in keeping with the understanding given by government town planners regarding the imminent facelift of Mui Wo, whereby the needs of the Lantau community  would be met.
I would also question the  college's claim that it is overcrowded at its present Ha Keng site. If this were so and it is in such dire need of additional space, then why has it not yet occupied its site in Kau San Tei, Tai O? It spent a good deal of money renovating the buildings of the  Tai O primary school in 2007, only to leave it unoccupied for well over a year. 
N. J. Sousa, Lantau
I was at the public meeting held in Mui Wo on Sunday to discuss the future of the vacant New Territories Heung Yee Kuk Southern District Secondary School ('Villagers angry but supportive over rehab centre', June 15). 
I am disappointed to learn that the government wants to railroad island residents, and try to open a drug rehabilitation school in Mui Wo, 'the gateway to Lantau'. 
At present, there are five prisons on Lantau. Making the  drug rehabilitation centre bigger and allowing it to occupy a prominent site in the centre of Mui Wo would give the impression of an 'Alcatraz-type of prison island' in the South China Sea.
The government's projected population figure for Mui Wo shows that it  will grow massively to 17,000 in 2016. This simply means that we need our school for our children, not for children who come from outside of our community. The government should help redevelop the  drug rehabilitation centre at its current site on Chi Ma Wan peninsula. 
Lorne Ali, Lantau
As I read the news reports, I felt sorry for the students and teachers of Christian Zheng Sheng College. 
At the same time, we should not place too much blame on Lantau residents. 
The government must ensure there is sufficient consultation and thorough research before deciding what to do with the vacant New Territories Heung Yee Kuk Southern District Secondary School. 
I am a Peng Chau resident and would not mind the college coming to this small and peaceful island. We have to look at the bigger picture - helping Hong Kong's future adults get on the right road again. 
Maria Lau, Peng Chau
On other matters ...
Reading the report ('Airline in cello row called insensitive to the arts', June 9), I could not help but wonder if some critical piece of information had been left out.
In my experience, cellists who wish to carry their instruments in the cabin pay full fare for a seat where the cello is strapped in and 'stored'.  It is  expensive,  but that's the way it's done. 
A ticket for the instrument is often issued in the surname of the artist with first name 'cello'. Information about the instrument is provided when the booking is made, and that information is typed into the airline's computer so there are no surprises at check-in or at the gate.
The alternative, of course, is to check it in  as baggage, which is what most  of us do, taking care to pack it well in cases that are made for this sort of thing.  Such cases have improved enormously in recent years, and accidents are rare. 
In 19 years of working with Dragonair and Cathay Pacific, the Asian Youth Orchestra has always provided a seat for our guest cellist's instrument and checked in 12 to 14 cellos as 'baggage' for an average seven sectors per tour each year. There has never been  a problem and instruments have always been professionally handled, as one would expect from an airline of Cathay's reputation and not least the official carrier of  Asia's most travelled orchestra.
Richard Pontzious, founder and artistic director, Asian Youth Orchestra
My wife, our helper and three small children (aged 15 months to four) flew on Cathay Pacific from Hong Kong to JFK airport, New York, on flight  840 on June 10. We bought  an extra seat for a total of six. We are extensive travellers and my wife is extremely conscious of the  items that we need to pack  for the children. 
We have also used an industry standard Sit 'N' Stroll on dozens of flights for the children. We brought it with us for this  flight as we have done  for every flight and was told that it did not fit. 
We told  staff that we not only  bought the seat for the infant but we also bought  a full fare extra seat. What were we supposed to do with the baby? 
The response was 'hold the baby'. But, we brought suitable industry approved  equipment to increase the comfort and safety of the infant. 
We asked what they were going to provide if we could not use our own? Their response was 'nothing'. 
My wife insisted that the safety seat fitted  and  it was always used on every other carrier. The staff then allowed her to place the Sit 'N' Stroll on the seat and  it was well secured. They then reversed their decision and ordered it removed.  Staff were uninformed, disingenuous and  unresponsive. They kept referring to procedure but staff kept contradicting each other. 
Kevin Crippen, Mid-Levels




Talkback