A recent advertisement for a teaching job in Beijing reads: 'Wenmei Language and Culture Centre. Co-operates with Beijing police force. Requirement: white American.' As one can see, it discriminates against everyone who is not a 'white American'. In the mainland, many English-language teaching jobs require that applicants be white. And those that do not require this make it clear that they prefer a white person. The demand for white English teachers is so high that there are schools which will hire virtually anyone who is white - such as a continental European or a white Russian - regardless of their English ability, let alone their teaching qualifications. Obviously, this racial discrimination is unacceptable, and from a Chinese-American's point of view, or that of any other ethnic Chinese raised in an English-speaking country, it is especially appalling. This phenomenon occurs while the central government actively promotes a policy of welcoming ethnic Chinese from all over the world to return to the motherland and contribute to its development. I am an American-born Chinese. My first China experience was through the China Synergy Programme - Hong Kong-based and sponsored by Beijing - which invites ethnic Chinese from around the world to tour the country. It was a flattering experience full of pomp and circumstance. I met senior officials, such as former Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa, former vice-premier Qian Qichen and Chinese Politburo Standing Committee member Jia Qinglin . This momentous experience undoubtedly influenced my eagerness to come back to China. After graduating from college, I knew about the extremely high demand for English teachers in China. So I decided to teach English there, but as soon as I arrived and started looking for jobs, all the formal welcoming and fanfare deteriorated into a feeling of exclusion and blatant racial discrimination. I went through rejection after rejection, with replies such as: 'You know, now in China, many many students want their foreign teachers to have a white face. It is extreme, but it is understandable.' I can understand, for example, that the parents of the students who want to learn English do not want a Chinese-American teacher, because they find it hard to believe that an American can look Chinese. But this is wrong. Choosing a teacher should not be based on one's physical appearance but on his or her effectiveness. The classic, Shi Shuo, declares: 'When learning, regardless of whether your teacher is rich or poor, or old or young, where knowledge is, your teacher is.' The idea that knowledge is indiscriminate should not be confined to wealth and age. Although official policy is obviously anti-racist, the prejudices of individuals are drastically different. What is happening in the English-teaching field is racial discrimination, and also a unique racial self-discrimination, or reverse racism, where the Chinese discriminate against their own kind. If China is to move forward and develop into a tolerant nation, it needs to reduce racism in its society. China's standards should be higher. HENRY HSU, Beijing Bar violent activists An agency report, 'Farmers unleash rage at cracking of rice bowl' (November 17), says that about 2,500 Korean farmers are expected to come to Hong Kong to take part in rallies against the World Trade Organisation. From observing the level of violence displayed during protests in their own country, we can be sure that these people are not coming to Hong Kong to take part in peaceful demonstrations. May we have a firm assurance from Hong Kong's secretary of security that our Immigration Department will take all steps necessary to prevent those bent on causing organised chaos from entering the city. After all, the department has a good record of protecting us from unwanted visitors. JOHN WILSON, Yau Ma Tei Suing over pollution If the government is aware that Hong Kong's polluted air is bad for the health of the population, should it not provide a warning when it offers employment to foreigners? The current omission of any such warning is beguiling and not befitting a decent employer. While such a warning may dissuade some from taking up an employment contract, it would surely save taxpayers' money in the long run, by preventing the government from being sued by people who are ill-informed and fall sick. Government employment contracts should be a model for all to follow. GRANT DYKES, Tung Chung Road safety - for cars I appreciated Mary Melville's letter 'Pedestrians excluded' (November 23) supporting my criticisms of the Transport Department and other government bodies for failing to consult pedestrians on road improvement matters, and for always relegating their considerations to the bottom of the pile. It is a pity that the commissioner for transport or commissioner of police never listen to our views. Last Tuesday, yet another elderly woman was knocked down and killed on a pedestrian crossing, joining the never-diminishing road carnage statistics. From initial reports it seems possible that the victim might have been on the crossing when the pedestrian signal was indicating red, but more importantly her view of oncoming traffic was obscured by a minibus stopped illegally. What is the police response to this? 'We will step up enforcement action against jaywalkers.' This announcement is akin to Captain Louis Renault's line in the film Casablanca, when he issues an order 'to round up the usual suspects'. The police are now apparently going to target the 'usual soft targets' - pedestrians. What is greatly needed is a blitz on vehicle drivers stopping illegally in the restricted areas adjacent to road crossings. Those zigzag lines along the roads near crossings are there for a purpose: to stop vehicles from waiting at these locations and obstructing the visibility of oncoming traffic to pedestrians, and also to ensure a clear view of the crossing by drivers. I regularly see government and police vehicles waiting at these locations, their drivers oblivious to the danger they are causing. Do readers also know that there is a Road Safety Council in Hong Kong? It is probably hard to believe this when reading about the daily deaths and maiming of pedestrians. Well, to understand why this body of esteemed people is so ineffectual, you have only to look at the composition of the council. Its members are overwhelmingly senior and traffic-branch police officers, and other government officials whose departments have a vested interest in promoting the use of vehicles. On the non-government side, there are representatives from drivers', insurance and road transport associations. I doubt whether there is a single non-car driver among the whole bunch. In my view this council is a failure and will remain discredited until a balance of interests is restored by co-opting on to it members who genuinely represent the interests of pedestrians. P. A. CRUSH, Sha Tin Only cosmetic changes When State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan commented on US President George W. Bush's remarks about freedom and democracy, by saying 'China's human rights are the best', I cannot help but think that the Beijing leadership is not going to change in my lifetime ('Bush lauds Taiwan's 'good example'', November 17). China has one of the world's worst human rights records; how anyone can deny that is beyond belief. Mr Tang is greatly deluded. Fear of change, even for the better, will prevent China from becoming a truly great nation. If it weren't for its cheap labour and economic opportunities, most of the world would view the country as a threat. Whenever the topic of politics comes up with my Hong Kong and mainland friends, they change the subject or offer the excuse of 'look at all the tall buildings in Shenzhen and Shanghai', as if skyscrapers define a free society. No doubt China is changing, but its changes are cosmetic and not of substance. Taiwan, by contrast, has changed so much from the time of the Kuomintang. Why would a free society ever want to join a totalitarian, corrupt social disaster like China? HARRY CHEN, Mei Foo Sun Chuen Paying the price in Iraq I refer to the letter 'Freedom's victory' (November 23). The correspondent should be ashamed to defend the US invasion of Iraq. It is now clear that a sovereign state is one which has the power to defend itself. US President George W. Bush wanted the oil and wealth of Iraq, which he partially got at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives. It had nothing to do with democracy or human rights, only the securing of American interests. What about Myanmar, North Korea and other brutal regimes - why does Mr Bush not attack them if he loves democracy so much? The US has killed more in two years than Saddam Hussein's brutal regime ever did. Both must pay the price. NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
