MY innocuous suggestion that thought be given to better education of new company directors appears to have generated mass confusion. I would like to try to correct the key misunderstandings and set the record straight.
1. Despite the impression given in the media ('Director's exam faces big test for acceptance,' SCMP Wednesday, May 10, 1995), I do not recommend examinations for company directors.
I merely suggest that the stock exchange might consider establishing a basic educational course for new directors of listed companies, either alone or jointly with some educational institution.
The course could be rudimentary, perhaps five evening sessions lasting two to three hours held during the course of a month.
The course might deal with directors' duties under company law, the Listing Rules (including the disclosure obligations under chapter 14 and the listing agreement), the Takeover Code and the Disclosure of Interests and Insider Dealing Ordinances.
It would not be a substitute for seeking professional advice - one can hardly be expected to become an expert from 10 to 15 hours of classroom instruction and a few hours of reading.
2. The suggestion for better education of directors of listed companies does not form part of the review of the Companies Ordinance. And we will most definitely not be recommending that examination requirements for company directors be written into company law.