I refer to Professor Otto C. C. Lin's response (South China Morning Post, January 27) to my letter of January 16 questioning what business the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) has in investing in the Nansha IT Park. Professor Lin responds that one of the government-mandated roles for the HKUST is 'to assist in the social and economic development of Hong Kong' and further states that investing 'intellectual dedication and endeavour' in the Nansha IT Park is fulfilling this role. His argument is questionable. The government's mandated role to assist Hong Kong's social and economic development means in Hong Kong, not in a technology park in Guangdong province. If Professor Lin wants to assist Hong Kong's development, it would be much more appropriate for the HKUST to increase the number of places for students here, a goal stated by Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa as part of his plan for making tertiary education available for a greater number of qualified Hong Kong students, than spending government-subvented resources in Nansha Island. Many local students are not able to attend any tertiary institution due to a limitation of available spaces in Hong Kong's institutions. Regarding Professor Lin's comment that the HKUST is not investing 'public subsidies', but only 'intellectual dedication and endeavour', who pays for this 'intellectual dedication and endeavour'? The Hong Kong government pays for it through salaries and supporting resources. Is Professor Lin implying that HKUST resources 'invested' in the Nansha IT Park are volunteers or staff working only on their days off? If they have so much free time to volunteer, perhaps they can volunteer to teach additional classes so more students can attend the HKUST. If a technology park is economically justified, the private sector will build it. The university should stick to education, its primary government-mandated role. NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
