THE E-MAIL FORUM Q How should Hong Kong remember Regina Ip? I read with interest Peter Halliday's correspondence. First, he asserts that the bottom line is whether Hong Kong needs Article 23 legislation. I beg to differ. The people of Hong Kong can understand and accept the need for legislation that protects the integrity of the system they have come to know, and the needs of the motherland, and that any such legislation would have to strike a balance for the 'one country, two systems' principle. What the Hongkongers cannot understand and accept is the manner in which former security chief Regina Ip and the government sought to railroad the bill. After all, there is a clearly defined legislative process. Given the potential impact of Article 23 on the public, it is paramount that the very people who will be most affected by this legislation be given the opportunity and time to scrutinise it. While I agree that the issues surrounding Article 23 are complex, it is also true that it is a government's responsibility to ensure any legislation it intends to enact is understood and accepted. Second, through her years of public service, Mrs Ip is portrayed as a person of vision, integrity and honour, and I am sure no one will disagree with this assessment. However, her handling of Article 23 also revealed a person who is either arrogant or ignorant - or both. Her refusal to publish a white bill, her brushing aside of concerns over how public feedback to the proposed legislation were accounted for and tabulated, and her disdain for the very people she purported to serve - these were the reasons behind her fall from grace. Third, Mr Halliday eloquently defines democracy for us and goes on to provide anecdotal evidence in support of his opinions. Sadly though, he misses the point. The very core of democracy is that man cannot be trusted, hence democracy is a system of checks and balances that ensures power does not rest in the hands of a few. The electoral process is but one of many possible means to this end. Article 23 proposed to do away with the checks and balances in place today - chiefly by giving the police the power to conduct searches without a court order and by enhancing the powers of the security chief. These two issues alone were sufficient to raise red flags in the minds of the many who did not read or understand all of Article 23. Mrs Ip's last resort was to ask the public to trust her, and this alarmed each and every person in Hong Kong who is familiar with George Orwell's Animal Farm. While I believe Mrs Ip, as security chief, could guarantee she would never use Article 23 in a manner for which it was not intended, I also believe she could not speak for her successors. The call for trust sets a bad precedence at best and paves the way to anarchy at worst. Finally, Mr Halliday asks for more intellectual activity in public debate. I could not agree more. Unfortunately, in this instance, it is not the public that has failed to provide the input for intellectual debate; it is the government which has failed to respond in an intellectual manner. David Brown, Tsuen Wan Q Are public transport prices fair? Being a regular public commuter, I find that most of the bus fares are reasonable. In recent years, franchised bus operators have tried to improve bus services, shunning the old reputation of public buses as a poor people's transport. On Hong Kong island, all bus routes are now air-conditioned services and the fares are very reasonable - thanks largely to competition from the trams and the MTR. Although Kowloon has no tram service, passengers can still opt for lower fares on non air-conditioned bus services. In the new towns, such as Tseung Kwan O and Tin Shui Wai, commuters have no cheaper options such as non air-conditioned buses and trams. Transport planners should consider allowing non air-conditioned buses to serve these new communities to give public commuters the option of low-cost travel. Dennis Ho Chun-yin, Hunghom Our government raises tax because all citizens must share the economic burden. Our employers cut our salaries because of the poor economic climate. If we support these points, then the cost of public transport should also be slashed to ease the people's financial difficulties. Transport companies' demands for a guaranteed fair profit are totally unacceptable. While most of us had pay cuts, our transport costs remain high. Transport companies should be made to realise that they have a responsibility to society. They should share in the people's burden in these difficult economic times. We need to have fair public transport costs. Michael Kam, Sha Tin On other matters... The term 'dirty tenants' does not simply mean the tenants are dirty - they are actually also dangerous. If the government continues to allow these dirty tenants to stay in crowded estates, it will be putting other tenants' lives at risk. Some may think I am being alarmist, but haven't we learned enough from the Sars outbreak? In public estates with mixed private and public ownership, dirty public tenants can evade penalties even though they break the rules on hygiene formulated by the government. The government should crack down on people who like to throw rubbish out of their windows. This behaviour is not only irresponsible; it is also disgusting and dangerous. The demerit system should be carried out strictly. Dirty tenants should be evicted. Janice Yim, Tseung Kwan O
