Poly playing by the book

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 14 June, 1994, 12:00am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 14 June, 1994, 12:00am

YOUR editorial (South China Morning Post, May 30), headlined ''Intolerable Arrogance'' which described the Hong Kong Polytechnic's action of terminating the contract of Trevor Sofield, the ''whistle blower'' as high handed, is not an accurate reflection of what occurred. Unfortunately, legal implications have severely handicapped our liberty to make reference to the cause assigned to the termination of Mr Sofield's employment contract.

However, we wish to make it abundantly clear that we encourage members of our staff to make legitimate complaints and constructive criticisms. We never did and never will dismiss any of our employees because she or he makes a legitimate complaint, criticism or suggestion. The termination of Mr Sofield's contract must not be interpreted as a punishment for expressing one's complaint or discontent.

As a matter of fact, Mr Sofield has never been considered the ''whistle blower'' as he did not take the initiative in bringing his complaints to members of the directorate. He only met with the director and made submissions to the panel of enquiry at their invitation.

One key objective of the management is to maintain a harmonious, effective and professional operation so that courses and activities can be implemented to best benefit the students. The management would consider terminating the service of an employee if the retention of this employee is found to be incompatible with this objective.

The statement made in that editorial is defamatory of the Hong Kong Polytechnic and its director. We think you should take whatever action is necessary to correct and remedy the wrong impression it has created.

ALEXANDER TZANG Associate Director Hong Kong Polytechnic