As a new member of the Democratic Party, I am very disappointed at comments made by prominent members of the pro-democracy group after the Legco election. They are all firing at the wrong targets. In columns, articles and letters, newly elected Legco member Albert Cheng King-hon and re-elected Emily Lau Wai-hing and Martin Lee Chu-ming continue to blame the results of the election on a 'lousy' and 'unfair' proportional representation system. And that without a majority first-past-the-vote system, there will never be 'true democracy' in Hong Kong. However, their attacks on the current list proportional representation system reveal nothing but their own ignorance. It is rudimentary that both systems have advantages and disadvantages. One of their main criticisms is that the current system favours tactical voting and hence put the democrats at a disadvantage because of relatively limited resources. Actually, first-past-the-post also encourages tactical voting, such as 'compromising', which encourages voters to vote for the candidate more likely to win, even if it is not their most preferred option. These politicians also complained that the number of successful candidates did not reflect the overall number of votes they received and pointed to that as a fundamental flaw of the present system. In fact, such anomalies can happen under both systems. In 1926, the Conservatives won 42 per cent of the votes for Manitoba in Canada's federal election under first-past-the-post, but failed to win any of the 17 seats up for grabs. All three seemed to be oblivious to the fact that many countries adopted proportional representation specifically to ensure that the proportional support gained by different groups is accurately reflected in the result. Do they not know that is where the name 'proportional representation' originates? The principle known as the Duverger's Law predicts that the first-past-the-post system will inevitably lead to a two-party system, drowning out smaller political parties and independents. Although it may reflect better how the public voted in terms of the number of elected candidates, it does so at the expense of the voice of the minority - which these politicians have claimed to protect on numerous occasions. Besides, the proportional representation system is much more common in democratic countries. JOSEPH WONG, lecturer, City University Villagers have rights I refer to the column 'Dubious rights and plenty of wrongs behind small-house policy' (September 23), by Jake van der Kamp. I found it inflammatory, poorly argued and lacking significant research. Look up the dictionary definition of 'indigenous'. Now tell me how one can justifiably take away villagers' right to build on land that is inherently theirs. I may agree with you that the policy is indeed sexist, but using an argument 'that it isn't available for some, so it shouldn't be available for all' sounds to me both feeble and flawed. And 240,000 people times 700 sq ft - you make it sound like the houses spring up for free. And if all 240,000 want to put up a house, well good for them. I for one will not dictate how someone decorates his or her own home. And as for the argument on the issue of legality: Chung King Mansions a bit of an eyesore? Change the law and take it all back. I doubt there are that many Indians in the Legislative Council. Come to think of it, President Mugabe got away with it, but to his credit at least he was indigenous. As my surname indicates, my family originates from the Man Yi Bay village that used to be just outside Sai Kung. My family's farm land and the original resting place of my ancestors is under a reservoir because of columns like this and the countless economic migrants with their 'what, they get to build a house - that's outrageous' attitude. Strike while the iron's hot? What iron? I am 30 years old and like the other 'youths' in my village we are still waiting for land at any price. MICHAEL S. S. MAN, Sai Kung Pollution: action, please Will the Environmental Protection Department please address the issue as to what is being done about air pollution? The situation is terrible. Many days the pollution is so bad you can see it and barely anything else. How is it that China Light and Power is allowed to burn coal? Is this company being responsible in your view? Isn't your department supposed to protect us and the environment? It seems that you are not really doing your job. I wonder what Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa thinks about this? Who would know as he never speaks on the issue. Why has China Light and Power not replied on the problem? Is money the only concern here? But talking about pollution is not enough. Something needs to be done. And please do not try to say it is getting better. Even if that were true, which I seriously doubt, obviously not enough is being done. Can anyone from China Light and Power explain why it is still burning coal? Many letters have asked the question, but I have not seen a response thus far. TERRY SCOTT, Tai Wai Democracy aids women Margaret Chu is proud of the women in Chinese history (September 25) and also reminds me of their recent Olympic victories. But the issue I raised in my September 23 letter was not historical Chinese or western bias against women. Rather it was the damaging role of Hong Kong's 'royalist' parties' role in not advocating universal franchise, thus depriving both men and women of their rights. The greatest enemy of equality and dignity for women in Hong Kong is not psychology, but the corrupt electoral system which gives half the seats in Legco to 'functional constituencies'. A quick look at the 30 recent such winners shows that only five of them are women - 17 per cent. Why is this? The major groupings in this business-controlled block are male dominated. In the geographical constituencies, six women were elected and others would have been if they had run and been given more support by women voters. So the only hope for more women's equality is the expansion of the geographical vote and the eventual elimination of the non-democratic, male-dominated functional constituency block. Ms Chu describes herself as a 'royalist'. Does she mean that she and the One Country Two Systems Research Institute condone a charade whereby half of the legislature will almost inevitably be the domain of 83 per cent male politicians? I also call on the women of Hong Kong to unite, but their efforts should be to reject a political and electoral system contrived to keep them serving male masters, whether in Beijing or locally. J. GARNER, Kowloon Beijing's 'secret' powers The arrest and disappearance of New York Times researcher in Beijing, Zhou Yan, because of 'state secrets' is precisely why so many people came out on July 1 last year to demonstrate against the Article 23 legislation. At that time and even now it seems the definition of 'state secret' is anything the central government does not want anyone to know, even though that information is made public soon after. In other words, the definition is totally arbitrary and one can be held incommunicado without even knowing one possesses a 'state secret'. Surely, Beijing can and should do better than that, especially when it aspires to 'world power' status. NAME, ADDRESS SUPPLIED Scions of leaders I would like to agree with Charles Henning that the sons and daughters of the mainland's Communist Party leaders enjoy special privileges (September 24). This would never happen in democracies. Signed Thatcher Megawati Gandhi Windsor, also known as ... JOHN BRUCE, Shau Kei Wan
