Q Should the cultural hub's giant canopy be built? It should be built only if the long-term maintenance requirements are adequately and professionally assessed. One of the major failings of the Hong Kong government used to be, and may still be, that when submitting requests for approval there used to be a space provided for 'recurrent costs'. However, the deputy financial secretary, who was then responsible for the approval, would make no commitment to these costs. The result was that, in the face of unexpected events such as the economic downturn, current costs were often disallowed and assets decayed, which then had to be replaced, at excessive cost to the taxpayer. This was particularly true with hi-tech assets, where neither the head of the department nor the deputy financial secretary had any real understanding of the problem. I fear the same could happen with the canopy which would, by its very nature, involve state-of-the-art design, materials and construction. I recommend a detailed assessment of the long-term maintenance, contingency and disaster planning be presented to the Legislative Council and the public before any decision to go ahead is made. Ken Bridgewater, New Territories Lord Foster has been responsible for two of Hong Kong's most memorable buildings: the HSBC building in Central and Chek Lap Kok airport. I therefore say if Lord Foster wants the canopy, then build the canopy. The brewing controversy surrounding the proposed cultural hub is reminiscent of another controversial centre, that in Australia, which has now become a national symbol: the Sydney Opera House. Mark Gillespie, North Point The government should do what it wants to do regarding the West Kowloon project and put an end to this useless smokescreen. Give the project to one of its mates to develop and be done with it, and let them develop it as they see fit. The money raised can be used to renovate the Central police station to make it a cultural and arts centre that will attract the best artists from China, Asia and around the world. Both the detractors and promoters of the Harbour Fest agree the city needs more shows, and the harbour is the best place for them. So let's invest in a harbour-side amphitheatre on the Tamar site. We may then be going in the right direction to becoming a centre for the arts. Stephen Anderson, Central Q How could primary school seats be allocated fairly? The allocation of primary school seats is important for six-year-old children. Parents are naturally concerned about securing places for their children at the best schools. However, at these schools, 50 per cent of seats are discretionary and distributed by the schools, which is unfair. The government should introduce a policy to reduce discretionary places from 50 per cent to 20 per cent. Then 80 per cent of seats would be distributed according to the Education Department's instructions. The remaining places should be allocated based on test results and interviews. If the government were to introduce this policy, discrimination would disappear. Parents would consider the allocation system as fair, reducing conflict. Chan Kong, Tsuen Wan I think giving priority to children who have relations at a particular school is unfair. Some say it is beneficial for students to have siblings studying at the same school as they can care for them and help them adapt to school life. But who took care of their siblings in the past? Children must learn to be independent. Primary school seats should be allocated based on ability, interview performance and entrance-test results. An applicant's relationship with a school should not be taken into account. It should be up to the children to secure their places, not their parents or siblings. Cheung Wing-yin, Kwun Tong The existing system is obviously unfair. Too much weight is given to discretionary places. This gives schools too much freedom to choose pupils, which is unnecessary. The only reason schools select pupils is because they want children who are at a similar educational level to make teaching easier and more effective. At the pre-school stage, we can hardly determine children's intelligence by looking at their kindergarten results. Interviews and written tests only put unnecessary pressure on children and their parents. Also, wealthy people can afford to send their children to classes to help them improve their interview skills. This is unfair to those who cannot afford it. A child who performs badly does not necessarily have low intelligence. There is no way of checking whether children are intelligent or not at this early stage. And there would be complaints regardless of the methods used to test the children. The fairest way to allocate seats is by random selection. Joyce Chan, Tsuen Wan I think the system is quite fair. Allocating seats according to where students live benefits both parents and children. This means parents do not need to travel for hours to find a well-known primary school in other districts for their children and students do not have to wake up too early to travel to school. If the present policy is abolished, I think many parents would go to districts such as Mid-Levels to apply for primary school seats for their children, ignoring their youngsters' wishes. Whether the child is happy at school is the most important concern. No solution in the world can satisfy everyone. No matter how good the allocation method is, some people will still complain. The government should choose the fairest way. Name and address supplied
