Neither Ho Ming-kwong (letter headlined, 'Nothing to do with doctors' protectionism', South China Morning Post, April 4), nor anyone else, can prove or dispute his opinion that the Hong Kong medical profession is not acting selfishly. The public know the answer before asking doctors whether they are serving their own self-interest.
I agree with Mr Ho's comment '. . . it is only human nature to seek the best for oneself . . .', but like most responsible doctors, the public disapprove if sectional interest damages the careers of our next generation.
Several factual errors that formed the basis of Mr Ho's letter warrant correction.
Recognition of Hong Kong's medical qualification has not been withdrawn by the United Kingdom. Correspondents to these columns have confirmed this fact and have been arguing why the UK has postponed such withdrawal since proposing it back in 1991.
Hong Kong people studying medicine overseas adversely affected by the Medical Registration (Amendments) Ordinance 1995 (MRO95) have openly agreed with the content of the law. They are not against it as Mr Ho seems to suggest.
Their gripe is that it was enacted without due consideration for those Hong Kong people who were already committed to study at recognised overseas medical schools years earlier. What they are arguing for is only an adequate grace period to facilitate their intended return home to practise medicine freely. This limited grace period does not involve those who go abroad to study after the enforcement date of MRO95. The concept of a grace period was in fact recorded in the Legislative Council's Hansard on July 28, 1995. The Hong Kong Medical Council recommended, and the Hong Kong Medical Association agreed that for Hong Kong people studying locally, '. . . a grace period [of exemption from the licensing examination] of five years for these [the University of Hong Kong and Chinese University] graduates to enable the universities to properly inform new candidates for admission into the medical schools' be given.
