Q Is cricket-fight betting a tradition that deserves more leniency? Cricket fanciers are fined between $600 and $10,000 for gambling on the fights (with only $8,000 in the pool spread among 100 more people it would hardly seem like serious gambling). This is typical of Hong Kong 'justice'. I think most of Hong Kong is really fed up with Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie and her obvious disdain for legal transparency (or incompetence). Name and address supplied Q Are you in favour of smoking bans in pubs? Before registering my complaint, I wish to express a word of praise. I congratulate the management of the Dublin Jack pub for taking a positive stand against smoking. This contrasts markedly with the indifferent attitude on the part of shopping mall management companies to the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance (Cap. 371). I have often seen people smoking in public areas of shopping malls. Many bars and restaurants place tables and chairs in these open areas for their customers' use. Some allow patrons to smoke outside their premises, or on those parts of their premises that are not enclosed. It appears that shopping mall management companies turn a blind eye, because they are unconcerned, not only about infringements of the ordinance, but also about the well-publicised dangers of passive smoking. Are these management companies above the law, or are the penalties too insignificant to be a deterrent? Why is this state of affairs allowed to continue with impunity? Michael Waugh, Cheung Chau Q How should the language policy be improved? It is disappointing to learn about the government's intention to advocate mother-tongue teaching further. The Education and Manpower Bureau seems to have decided, whatever the underlying reasons, that the majority of Hong Kong schools should pursue a 'mother-tongue teaching policy'. The recent drop in the passing rates in English language and other subjects taken in English for schools using the language as a medium for teaching have been taken as evidence to substantiate the claim that communication in Cantonese is more effective than English in schools. I would not argue the validity of the above conclusion. I agree that for students who have difficulties understanding even basic English, this could be the only choice. Also, given a set of exam questions of the same level of difficulty in any subject, it is often easier to answer in Chinese than in English. Yet I would contend that mother-tongue teaching would have the following devastating and irreversible consequences which the bureau has failed to address in any consultation paper so far: 1) In adopting this policy, most Hong Kong A Levels school leavers will find the doors to overseas universities shut because of the bad scores in English tests. Unless all Hong Kong universities change the medium of communications from English to Cantonese, students who graduate from a Cantonese-speaking environment yet manage to be admitted to a local university will find the burden of switching from the mother-tongue back to English disastrous. 2) Hong Kong students have few opportunities to practise spoken English after school. With mother-tongue teaching, the only environment in which students could practise spoken English would be ruined. Is it not naive to expect that the level of fluency in this international language will not deteriorate? Hong Kong would lose its advantages to Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Singapore as more and more young people are illiterate in English while more Asian cities emphasise the use of English in their school curriculums. 3) Despite the efforts made to convince Hong Kong people of the advantages of mother-tongue teaching, parents have responded by sending their children to overseas schools. This is one of the contributors to the gradual decline in grades achieved in A Levels as well as the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination. One does not need much intelligence to imagine the effects on parents' determination to seek a better place for their children once this mother-tongue teaching policy is announced. Anthony Yu Hok To, Tseung Kwan O On other matters... Your article on tongue acupuncture certainly gives parents of autistic children the wrong impression. I am a parent of an autistic child. I have known of other parents bringing their children to the mainland for tongue acupuncture. From what I was told, it was very traumatising for the child. Four adults had to hold down the child and a clamp used on his mouth and tongue before they could proceed to stick the needles in. After several sessions, I did not see any improvement in their child's speech and neither did the parents. Needless to say, the child was terrified. I certainly would never allow my son to go through this kind of treatment. My son, diagnosed at the age of two, was non-verbal and not very high functioning. The turning point came when he was enrolled at the Rainbow Project at the age of five. Through speech therapy and professional teaching in his school, his speech has improved tremendously. Sadly, there is a lack of proper school and other educational facilities for autistic children in Hong Kong compared with elsewhere. William Sim, Ap Lei Chau
