Advertisement
Advertisement
Vladimir Putin is being typically aggressive. Photo: AFP

Letters to the Editor, July 26, 2014

I refer to the article by former senior civil servant Joseph Wong Wing-ping ("A shred of hope", July 22).

I refer to the article by former senior civil servant Joseph Wong Wing-ping ("A shred of hope", July 22).

It is particularly important that when, as a political commentator, he addresses students in Hong Kong, he brings himself and them around to the understanding that a nomination committee is necessary for the chief executive election in 2017. Such a committee can screen out people so that we do not get a secessionist elected and presented to the central government for appointment as our chief executive.

This screening must be done by either the Beijing or Hong Kong administration. Not all pan-democrats should be lumped together as unpatriotic, to be screened out.

The silent majority of the people of Hong Kong, which could be up to 5.3 million after deducting those who voted the pan-democrats into Legco, those who voted in the unofficial "referendum" and the July 1 marchers, are at least not supportive of the pan-democrats' cause although they cannot be said to oppose it. Mr Wong should stop saying Hong Kong people want what the pan-democrats are promoting, which is simply "over my dead body" with anything to do with the mainland and the central government, for example, the nomination committee.

Not changing the electoral arrangement for the 2016 Legco election is not stopping political reform. The 2012 arrangement of indirect election by universal suffrage with five new functional constituency seats was a big step forward.

Beijing rightly puts national security and unity of the nation above the individual's quest for democracy and personal freedom, which is unfortunately the opposite of the pan-democrats' priority. Pan-democrats who do not like this can get out of Hong Kong.

 

As Occupy Central is becoming a possibility, many organisations in the Hong Kong business community are voicing their opposition to the idea of civil disobedience.

Earlier this month HSBC downgraded its outlook for Hong Kong, citing the risk Occupy Central carries, to be followed the next day by Barclays also stressing the danger of a shock to the stability of property prices.

It is a curious fact that no major Chinese bank felt the need to issue a negative rating on Hong Kong. Are our prestigious, internationally recognised financial institutions attempting to please Beijing?

 

I oppose the Occupy Central movement based on economic and social factors.

The Alliance for Peace and Democracy has collected about 350,000 signatures for its petition against Occupy Central. This shows the strength of opposition. Occupy Central's fundamental aim is civil disobedience. But I am not convinced we will see only peaceful protests and fear the situation could turn violent.

I think most Hong Kong citizens are more concerned about the city's economic development than universal suffrage. If Central is occupied, the operations of many firms will be disrupted or halted and that will harm that economic development. When that happens, all Hongkongers will suffer.

Occupy Central organisers should think carefully about the effects of their actions.

 

The article by Paul Letters ("Fight or flight", July 23) has prompted me to comment on the tragedy of flight MH17.

Mr Letters said that in what terms the Russian authorities should be "condemned depends on who you ask".

The responses of the leaders of European countries to what happened have been based on pragmatism and realism. They feel they must reflect on their trade relations with Russia and they have to weigh political gains and losses. Ultimately I believe Russia comes out the winner and everyone else is, collectively, the loser. A very dangerous precedent has been set, and this could lead to more serious incidents.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's hallmark is aggression, and he has once again displayed this part of his political strategy. Very little has happened in the way of punishment. I hope this situation will not escalate so we end up facing a new cold war.

 

I take great offence to Dr Lee Ho-yin's comment that the protesters opposed to the hotel at 27 Lugard Road are misguided and misinformed ("Take a Peak into the past ...", July 10).

I read nearly all of the 200-plus pages in the Town Planning Board application and updates. All my information on 27 Lugard Road came from the owners and their experts who wrote the proposal.

Based on their application, this will not be a place for visitors to enjoy high tea and the view because no food or beverage will be available to the public. It will not be a "walk back in time", as the interior will be demolished to accommodate the 13 rooms they propose to squeeze into the building. The historic gardens will be cleared to make way for two three-storey glass buildings and an additional four guest rooms.

Four vehicle trips per hour is not negligible when, according to traffic research by the owners, there is a minimum of 150 pedestrians per hour on the trail on weekdays.

How will guests and their luggage get to the airport on weekends without a car? Will a tricycle be any better than a car when on weekends there are up to 900 pedestrians per hour?

School trips and charity events are not mentioned but are a regular occurrence. Tell those in wheelchairs or with push chairs that the traffic is negligible when they are forced off the 1.8-metre-wide road by 1.475-metre-wide electric cars every 15 minutes.

Dr Lee should read the building application before judging those of us trying to protect the heritage trail and the safety of the people using it.

The floor plans, renderings, traffic and effluent studies are all there, and it is criminal that this hotel development was ever approved. If he wants to save historic buildings he should not support conversion of this building to a hotel but encourage the owners to find another use for it.

 

I do not think the government should force private hospitals to disclose most of their charges to patients ("Private hospitals may be forced to reveal fee details", July 17).

People supporting such a move will think of the advantages to the public without considering the impact on the hospitals.

It will be difficult for these private hospitals to calculate accurate payments, since there are often many extra services and surgical appliances are included within the whole surgical procedure.

Also, there are the costs involved in recuperation after an operation. Then there is the amount of time nurses and doctors must spend with each patient; again, this is difficult to calculate.

In other words, hospitals can only be expected to give patients an estimate in advance and inform them that they must expect to face additional charges.

If a rule was introduced with penalties for hospitals that did not comply, then this would increase the workload for the hospital and the relevant government officials.

Hospitals would need to hire additional administrative staff to calculate exact charges and update the list of these charges. Again, more officials would be needed to check and supervise private hospitals, leading to increased costs.

Also, I am not convinced by the argument that greater transparency of these hospitals' charges would encourage more Hongkongers to buy medical insurance.

It does not seem to me that this proposal is practical.

 

I refer to the report ("Plan to speed up stalled land negotiations", July 15).

The Development Bureau is mapping out a scheme to have a tribunal act between the Lands Department and the private developers.

I thought that the department had professional land surveyors within its ranks.

Surely the community pays these civil servants a great deal of money to make decisions on behalf of the public.

It seems that the civil service is becoming paranoid about any accusations of collusion with tycoons.

It appears to be the modus operandi for departments to routinely employ private consultants (at a huge cost to the public purse) to do their job for them.

A good example was the "Consultancy Study on Rationalising the Utilisation of Road Harbour Crossings" in November 2010.

In this case the Transport Department is still fudging a decision.

Post