• Fri
  • Aug 1, 2014
  • Updated: 4:29pm
My Take
PUBLISHED : Saturday, 19 April, 2014, 3:17am
UPDATED : Saturday, 19 April, 2014, 3:17am

Time for government to act over closure of kindergarten in Tin Shui Wai

Can there be a more sickening display of ruthless free-market capitalism and government incompetence than the row over the impending closure of a long-running preschool in Tin Shui Wai?

To be sure, there is plenty of blame to go around.

The clueless management of the private Topkids International Preschool must have known for months that negotiations over lease renewal with the landlord, the listed Fortune Real Estate Investment Trust, were hitting a wall. Yet, its managers made no contingency plans for an alternative temporary site for their students and appeared to be as surprised as anyone that they now face losing the school.

The ruthless and shortsighted executives at Fortune are not kicking the school out because it didn't pay rent. The preschool actually offered to double the current rent of HK$260,000. But Fortune has the gall to say a rival school outbid the preschool by 20 per cent. They seem to have no concept of the cost of reputation damage.

Come on, Justin Chiu Kwok-hung and Justina Chiu Yu, have a heart. The father and daughter are respectively the chairman and deputy chief executive of Fortune. Everyone knows Chiu senior as the right-hand man of tycoon Li Ka-shing, whose Cheung Kong flagship owns 28 per cent of Fortune.

I am sure the Chius never heard of the preschool until the row broke out. But they need to train their executive staff better. Ever heard of such a thing as corporate responsibility? When your group leases premises to a school, your responsibility goes beyond making an extra buck for your shareholders.

Meanwhile, of all the premises in the district, rival kindergarten chain Zenith International Education Foundation deliberately picked Topkids and outbid it. It is now poaching Topkids' students. Is this education or good old capitalist cutthroat competition? Does the school have any morals at all?

Last but not least, the Education Bureau led by the unusually incompetent Eddie Ng Hak-kim just folds its arms, saying it can't do anything because it's a private-sector row. If the Labour Department can mediate between workers and bosses, so can you. Ng, pick up the phone.

Share

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

76

This article is now closed to comments

pslhk
Absurdity becomes reality in manure’s Procruste nogic
Everything is cut in nogical shapes
and fitted into manures categories
upside down
-
Is it insane to argue that Natural Laws are natural assets
the use of which comes with liabilities?
DoI proclaims to “the world” and not just to “Americans”
as it refers to “the Course of HUMAN events” not just “US event”
and “ALLl men” and not just “Americans”
DoI doesn’t read like a US proclamation of its nationalization of Natural Rights?
Why GWB used Kurds and WMS as pretexts to invade Iraq?
-
I’ve always avoided responding to manure’s shallow questions
lest arguing in an inferior mode of Tractatus against PI
A full question is half an answer
but manure is obsessed with 0.1% questions
that are deficient for political and moral discussions
-
Nogic is definitional in a distorted mode
It just might somewhat follow legal arguments
except that manure is utterly ignorant
Not knowing that the law is largely a definitional subject
manure even wants to discuss international and common laws
without first clarifying what’s law
-
“Legal” argument can best expose manure’s nonsense
I asked but manure hasn’t clarified what it means by law
manure asks: “do show me "int'l law". Not just treaties”
Let’s turn manure upside down
for it to see a right view of the world
“do show us contract law, not just agreements”
-
Confession: I’ve been unkind
321manu
Well Pierce m'boy, funny stuff once again. Good job.
I can't say A. Lo is insane and pathetic. But his logic isn't the best a majority of the time. I haven't read Mr. Annan's justification for "blaming" the US, so I have no opinion on that.
My "principle" is simple: present a logical argument for your position. It's complicated for you only because you repeatedly fail to meet a simple requirement.
"consistency"? Absolutely. The US D of I declares life etc to be unassailable rights for Americans, and they should be held responsible if they fail to discharge those responsibilities for Americans. That's not being debated here. What is, however, is your crazy and still unsubstantiated claim that the "US" D of I obligates the US to provide D of I protections to every soul in the world.
See April 25, 356PM. "So, fill your boots with references to the relationship between natural law and the D of I. But your problems remain. I'll even number them for you.
1. by basing the D of I on natural law, how does that obligate the US to defending any and all natural law principles until eternity?...
2. the D of I was the US message to the world. WHere in that message did they say that they assume the obligation to defend worldwide against any infringement of the rights and values upon which the US is based?".
Take your time, Pierce m'boy. Your lack of answers and continued evasion will not change the questions before you. Now be a good boy and say something funny. Ring ring
321manu
BTW, yes, I've "proclaimed" the non-existence of international law. Since you seem to claim that such a thing exists, feel free to show us anytime. It's not for a lack of asking. What will you require? A formal invite? LOL. Just as my good deed of the day, remember that in logic, the burden of proof is on you to show something exists. I can't prove a negative. But do take your time, since you seem to need a lot of it. You are also the slowest CCP apologist I know, so congrats: You are the BEST at being SLOW. Text your parents the good news! Well done, m'boy.
I've never claimed to be an expert.You're the supposed expert. But you're also an expert who can't seem to answer any questions. That's a pretty useless expert...but I guess that's what constitutes an "expert" among CCP apologists.
pslhk
Are A Lo and K Annan also insane and pathetic
for "blaming" US inaction in Rwanda?
-
What is manure's "principle" for judging US blamers?
-
We need formal and substantive causes to blame
Consistency is a standard we require from everybody
For the discussion of "consistent to what"
I referred to the own words of the US
hence DoI
which is red herring to manure
only becuase manure is a shallow, ignorant, and stupid
and has been busy to show the world his poor qualities
-
Un bel di
Con onor muore
321manu
LOL, Pierce m'boy. This discussion was about your insane and pathetic attempt to "blame" the US on Rwanda. The D of I is itself a red herring, but since you insisted, I've just deconstructed your logic for you so as to lay bare your complete absence of an argument.
Have you lost sight of the original topic? Have your own obfuscations so disoriented you that you can no longer recall the object of discussion? Hint: It's not common law. It's not natural law. It's not even D of I. It's the supposed US culpability on Rwanda. But with all the red herrings you've tossed around, it seems you've lost sight of the original topic. That too is all-too-typical among CCP apologists. Though I wlll say, Pierce m'boy, that you obfuscate more than any CCP apologist I've seen before. So well done, m'boy. You are the best CCP apologist I know at obfuscation! Your parents must be so proud.
pslhk
manure is trying to escape
with the ex post facto denial
of the affected authority it before pretentiously presumed
mouthing BIG sounding rubbish with intimidating referral to RLC's book
-
"I'm no expert on D of I"?
Then how did manure make the intellectual discovery
that "DoI is found on common law"
Is manure an expert on common law?
-
"I'm just quoting someone who is published on the arena"
What arena is that and how does that arena relate to manure's arena?
It can't be clearer all along that the obfucation manure refers to is its own
-
manure lacks everything that's needed for a normal discussion
of not just knowledge of RLC's book which it "quoted"
but also my discussion which is undoubtedly out of its depth
"meaningless" is the only honest comment it often expresses
manure is too ignorant and stupid to begin to understand
-
Shame manure Shame
-
Un bel di
Lie no more
Go play ball


321manu
Wow Pierce m'boy! I know obfuscation is your middle name, but are you on crack now too? I've been asking all of those questions since the outset of this discussion. Now that I've summarized them in one place for you, you ask for numbering? Is counting to 5 too challenging for you?
But instead of answering them here, you've left comments on 2 other threads? Was that really necessary? You've already jacked this one, and now you're jacking 2 more? And what on earth is "RMs TM"? I will go check them out based on morbid curiosity to see what you "reviewed".
And for the umpteenth time, I've already stipulated I'm no expert on D of I. I'm just quoting someone who is published on the arena. And it's one of your red herrings anyway. The genesis of this discussion was your programmed desire to blame the US, and in this case, on Rwanda. The UN argument went up in smoke, so you somehow reached for D of I. But you've yet to establish any basis for suggesting that the D of I obligates the US to assume a duty of care for all the souls in the world. And unless and until you do so, the D of I serves no role in the discussion...except as yet another symbol of the extent a CCP apologist will go to in order to obfuscate.
I gotta say, spreading 1 discussion over 3 threads is not funny, and just a pain in the butt. But this truly I've haven't seen before from a CCP apologist. Something new under the sun from our cute little doggy. Well done m'boy.
321manu
Ok, just sat through your nonsense on the Google thread. You really are on crack. It's not a book review (well, maybe a gentle plug). It's certainly not a serious discussion upon the geometries of spacetime, or of relativity. At best, it is the random musings of a navel-gazer. What was that supposed to demonstrate? That a CCP apologist can ask inane questions about "black holes" and whether paratroopers can defy gravity? Again, not funny; just full-on straight-jacket crazy. Is that somehow supposed to equate to how you might have an important opinion on the US D of I?
pslhk
Nogician
-
manure’s obsession is "expertise" that the fool knows nothing about
It evidences manure’s shallowness and hypocrisy
What is the expertise of that fool
who authoritatively proclaimed
the non existence of international law
and ruled that professional A Lo’s remark on Rwanda is wrong?
-
Is manure an expert in international law, journalism,
international politics, morality, and blame arbitration?
-
As far as we can ascertain
manure is the one and only one expert
in the one and only one kind of its own rubbish
NOGIC
-
Go play ball
Learn self respect
Stop mouthing rubbish
to show off ignorance and bad faith in the forum
321manu
OK. Now I sat through 2 new comments on that "press freedom" thread. I'll help you out and use numbers like you requested. I'm all for Good Samaritan deeds. Good for karma.
#1. It seems we've established, and you've finally accepted, that you're no expert on D of I. Well done, m'boy!
#2. You are right. I stand corrected.
#3: "it owes “a candid world” the obligation to do the same given similar situations". Why? D of I was justification to declare independence from England. At the very farthest reaches of logic, you might suggest that the US might have some kinship with another nation that wanted to break free from colonial masters and strive for independence. But there is no obligation there. Even if "natural law" is in part the foundation for D of I, the US use of NL does not then obligate it to become the protector and enforcer of NL worldwide. Besides, the D of I is the US statement on behalf of Americans, even so far as justification to the world; but it is NOT a US promise to the world. You are imagining "obligations" not only where none were intended, but also where none exist.
Your #4 is a non-answer. Sure, there can be prudence. But the question is who determines it. Further, "What makes you better equipped to determine what is prudent for the US gov't, than the US gov't?"
You skipped #5. But that's fine. It was a stupid point on your part anyway.
#6:Please, do show me "int'l law". Not just treaties, remember.
Nice try though. Good boy.

Pages

 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or