Q Should the government Daimler be sold? The dilemma over the Daimler car auction could perhaps be solved by consulting with the financial secretary on his long-term transport requirements. James Walker, Mid-Levels Q Does Hong Kong need tighter dog-control laws? I find the government's position that they are powerless to act since no law was broken (because the 10-strong pack that savaged a domestic helper were licensed and on private property) absurd and ridiculous. Clearly such a heinous attack should be punished regardless of where it happens, or whether the weapons, in this case dogs, were licensed. If I had a licensed gun and shot an unarmed visitor in my house, would the government be powerless to prosecute? I think not. At the minimum, the dogs should be put down. They are a danger to the public. If this were anywhere else on this planet, the owner would be facing serious charges. Philip Chu, Central Q Does Hong Kong need more than two research universities? The proposal that by combining two world-class institutions into one we will somehow create an entity that is greater is absurd! Look at recent so-called synergistic mergers elsewhere: AOL and Time Warner did not result in 1+1=3. In that case, the result was 1+1=0.5. HKUST has achieved international acknowledgement as a world-class institution in just over a decade of existence. Many countries with a reputation for excellence in tertiary education - Australia or the UK for example - would love to have an institution of such international repute. If Hong Kong allows shining success stories such as this to be swallowed up and disappear, I despair for this community's future hopes or prospects. Hong Kong's fiscal guardians need to understand that the future can only be bright if we make it so. Hong Kong is searching for a role that will lift it above the competitive value that others can offer. Higher education, above that standard offered in neighbouring economies - indeed of a world standard - is the only answer to a prosperous future. Charles Brian-Boys, Sai Kung Q Is Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo right to ban maids working in Hong Kong? It seems that Mrs Arroyo is not quite familiar with the problems most of her subjects are faced with. In many cases, domestics working overseas are the only breadwinners of their families. Husbands, if still around, are mostly out of work or underemployed. Children need to be fed, clothed and sent to school. Elderly parents have to be taken care of. The $3,000 a month they send home has to cover all those needs. Back home, in a similar job, they would probably earn a third, if not less. To cut their salaries by $400 a month is already bad enough and we Hongkongers should be ashamed for letting our government discriminate against our lowest-paid workers. I also understand that the approximate 300 daily applications for contract renewals are also being suspended by the Philippine Consulate, subject to further instructions from back home. Fortunately, many employers understand the plight of their helpers and they are not deducting their salaries accordingly. The less fortunate ones are rightly upset and protest. However, they will have to accept their fate as it is still better for them to agree to this cut and not return home where they have absolutely no chance of getting a job which will cover their basic expenses. Moreover, many have to pay back their loans to the banks and loan sharks they approached to settle the exorbitant placement fees charged by the agencies back in the Philippines. Now, with Mrs Arroyo's probably well-meant move, the future of many hardworking and honest members of our society will be in doubt, in particular if they have to return home. Why not propose a 50/50 split, with the employer shouldering $200, and the helper the other half. Both would most likely agree, to settle this dispute once and for all. Mrs Arroyo might then re-consider her implementation and consequently the helpers might be able to renew their contracts, and continue to support their families back home. Last but not least, employers will appreciate that the helper can process her papers without hassle and interruption to the daily routine. Hannes Lanz, Sai Kung Mrs Arroyo's retaliation is a very drastic, inhuman and insensitive move. The decision is politically motivated, but it is the maids who will suffer. Our government's initial decision was not sensible. The Hong Kong government obviously wants to cut the number of Filipino maids and give the jobs to locals. In effect, the Philippine government made the task easier for Hong Kong. I don't think our government ever thought about those who will lose their jobs. Did it ever think of the families of those maids who will be forced to leave Hong Kong? Did our government think about those maids who might decide to stay illegally in Hong Kong? Let's say the ban was lifted, did our government ever think about the high cost for the maids in re-applying for Hong Kong jobs in the Philippines? Even if the suspension is only temporarily, the damage has been done. Surely, Mrs Arroyo and her advisers failed to see the consequences of this ban. Flor V. Antonio, Happy Valley Send your e-mails to: talkback@scmp.com Please include full name, address and telephone number, not necessarily for publication
