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

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

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

Letters

Recognising all employees as partners
In his column ("It's employers who are best at distorting labour market", August 10), Jake van der Kamp wrote about the labour market, the minimum wage, and Hong Kong's responsibility to its working people to enable them to be better off, particularly at times in the economic cycle when business is better.
Can governments legislate a better deal for all, to help close the rich-poor divide, or should businesses and employers evolve better solutions?
To myself and my partners in the firm Lead, this issue cuts to the core of determining what business is for. Progress, innovation, and shareholder value are all important. But part of the larger topic of progress is business' role in equalising inequality, and raising as many people as possible to higher standards of living.
Too many business-as-usual companies see profit for profit's sake, and focus the largest payouts on owners and holders of the top jobs, and pay employees the minimum.
As soon as a single-person entrepreneur evolves the business model to become an employer, and a handful of employees increase to a workforce, it is implicit that the health of the company is dependent upon the efforts of the team; otherwise why employ anyone?
Recognising the contribution of everyone is key. If the employee team helps grow the business, then the team also needs to be recognised and rewarded commensurately.
Like many employee-owned companies across the world, what we have done at Leadarchitects is to place the word fairness as a key part of our governance, and recognise all our employees as partners, and put checks and balances in place with ratios to limit pay and bonus levels.
In our small way, we believe we are doing what we can to address pay inequality, and make all employees truly engage with the business that they are part of. UK companies such as John Lewis and Arup are way ahead of us, but we'll never get on the road to a better, fairer world, if we never start the journey.
Simon Blore, director, Leadarchitects Limited
 
Angered by anti-Occupy Central march
I have followed with dismay the all-too apparent manipulation of gullible people being fed propaganda by pro-Beijing loyalists about the Occupy Central initiative for a freer election process.
People were pressured to back Beijing and voice objections to Occupy Central under threat from professional bodies or employers.
Others, opposing the movement, were bussed in on Sunday, August 17, for a free lunch to participate in a march which occupied Central, thereby undermining their own argument.
Major banks which took out adverts here against the Occupy movement to curry favour with Beijing were completely silent during the Occupy movements in New York and London, knowing full well such activities in no way interfered with their business activities.
But in Hong Kong, a similar protest movement is responded to with ever escalating catastrophic projections. Is the threat of further democracy in Hong Kong really so threatening?
Every time there are typhoon signals No 8 to No 10, all of Hong Kong, not just Central, shuts down with not a word of protest heard.
Melanie Bryan, Mid-Levels
 
Passengers must take care on escalators
The MTR Corporation recorded 435 escalator accidents in the first half of this year.
Escalator safety is important with a network which has 1,000 of them and serves 5.2 million passengers every day. Their smooth operation is vital.
The MTR Corp says most accidents happen because of passengers, either they lose their balance or they are carrying large items ("MTR steps up escalator safety campaign", August 7).
Passengers can be careless and they must follow the MTR's guidelines. If people do not take care, not only can they get hurt, but they may hurt others on the escalator. I think the MTR's decision to deploy "escalator safety ambassadors" to various stations is a positive move.
I was on an MTR escalator with my mother when it stopped suddenly. Luckily it was not busy and we were holding the handrail, so we were fine. But, if the MTR intends to shut off power, it should give passengers advance notice.
Karen Lee, To Kwa Wan
 
Using iBonds a safe option for MPF Authority
The core fund initiative unveiled by the Mandatory Provident Fund Authority suggests a low-cost life cycle portfolio as a default arrangement in the MPF system, but it has two fatal problems.
First, it fails to ensure product suitability for every employee. Second, there is no guarantee it will not suffer from losses at age 65.
Since employees must invest in the MPF, the government has the responsibility to provide investments that protect against losses at maturity.
With a near-zero prescribed savings rate, even the so-called capital preservation funds are unable to maintain their purchasing power. The core fund should be an option with low fee, low risk, reasonable return, and ease of operation.
In response to inquiries about iBond investment, Eddie Cheung Kwok-choi, deputy secretary for financial services, told lawmakers that MPF schemes should be managed by private operators not by the government while the aim of iBond issuance is to further develop the local bond market.
Such an argument is not logical at all. In fact, there are only two things the government needs to do to invest in iBonds: continue to issue iBonds (issue once a month, with the value depending on the amount of MPF contributions) and require the core fund to only invest in the iBond series. In this way, the core fund is still managed privately and, at the same time, the Hong Kong bond market expands, so everyone is a winner.
Is the government's subsidy to iBonds reasonable and affordable in the long term? With an ageing population and stagnant real wage growth, the total mandatory monthly MPF contribution, from employers and employees, has reached its ceiling.
The accumulated government surplus over the last 17 years comes to HK$371.4 billion.
This is more than enough to cover the interest payments to iBond holders for years to come, which means there is no likelihood of a default and they remain a sound investment. Hence, the best choice of the core fund is a fund investing in iBonds.
Dr M. F. Chan, managing director, Noble Apex Advisors Limited
 
Buffalo watch groups should pool resources
Lately, it seems, the buffaloes and cows of Hong Kong's country parks are getting more media attention than issues that should be of greater concern to the populace, such as whether or not we should build a third runway.
New bovine watch groups are popping up weekly on Facebook, each with seemingly their own agenda and no cross-group organisation.
Things have got so out of control that one member of one of these organisations recommended painting cows for the weekend tourists on Lantau to raise money.
With little to no oversight, the government has left the plight of our bovine friends in unknowledgeable and untested hands.
Instead of fighting among themselves, these buffalo watch groups should work together for the benefit of the cows.
Willy Lorenz, Lantau
 
End hurdles for overseas doctors
We are seeing an increasing number of medical incidents in public hospitals.
Many people put the blame on the insufficient number of doctors in local hospitals. Yet the Hong Kong Medical Association is setting a hurdle for overseas medical graduates to practise in Hong Kong, claiming the need for clinical competency for these graduates.
If I may ask the president of the Medical Association: for those doctors who are involved of local medical incidents, how many of them are overseas graduates?
It is high time to remove protectionism and take off the useless self-esteem hat.
A 10-year-old child in the street could tell you that a medical doctor who graduated from Oxford University is 10 times better than one from the medical schools of our universities. It is time to wake up and face reality.
Joseph Lee, Quarry Bay
 
Arrival tax would hurt HK retailers
I understand why people are calling for an arrival tax for tourists. It would be aimed at curbing the influx of mainlanders coming into Hong Kong, including parallel traders.
While there are advantages, this levy could also have a detrimental effect on the economy. With fewer mainland visitors, there would be fewer people spending money in our shops.
Before any decision is made to go ahead with an arrival tax, the government would have to give careful consideration to the advantages and disadvantages.
Lisa Chung Lai-yan, Tiu Keng Leng


Letters to the Editor, August 25, 2014

MTR trying to raise passenger awareness. Photo: David Wong

Employers, and not just the minimum wage, distort Hong Kong labour market

Representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions marched on Labour Day to protest against migrant labour.

MTR steps up escalator safety campaign

A man uses an escalator at Central station as the MTR's annual escalator safety campaign kicks off yesterday. The event runs until the end of the month. Photo: David Wong

Opinion

Can governments legislate a better deal for all, to help close the rich-poor divide, or should businesses and employers evolve better solutions?


Letters to the Editor, August 25, 2014

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Can governments legislate a better deal for all, to help close the rich-poor divide, or should businesses and employers evolve better solutions?

Can governments legislate a better deal for all, to help close the rich-poor divide, or should businesses and employers evolve better solutions?