bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

additionalInfoBoxes

quizIds

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

The letter from solicitors Jonathan Midgley and Christopher Morley ('Mainly Cantonese used in courts', February 18) misrepresented the issue, which is that Hongkongers are denied the right to be heard in their own language, Cantonese, in court.

Nowhere did my letter say that trials are conducted largely in English. Is this lawyer-speak?

They report that 76 per cent of trials in magistrates' courts were heard in Cantonese last year. This leaves almost a quarter that were not. Given that Hong Kong is a largely Chinese city, how many of the 24 per cent would have preferred their cases to be heard in Cantonese, but were denied this right? This is the point that I made, and that was not addressed.

The media has highlighted examples of people denied the right to language choice, probably because either the judge or the lawyers involved were illiterate in Cantonese. How can we continue to deny people justice in their own language and force them to be heard in a foreign one? I urge Secretary for Justice Wong Yan-lung to find out how many people would rather have been heard in Cantonese, but were not.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Progress in democracy

A. L. Nanik ('Two views of democracy', Sunday Morning Post, February 19) said: 'Full democracy is the right of Hongkongers, guaranteed by the Basic Law' and 'The mainland's rapid progress without democratic development is shallow and has created social unrest.'

I wonder when the last time was that A. L. Nanik visited the mainland and how much of it he or she has seen. There has been steady democratic development there in recent years, which is recognised worldwide. People on the mainland enjoy a lot more freedom today and there has been much less social unrest over the past decade. If the writer only believes in his or her model of democracy, rather than one better suited to developing countries, why did he or she choose to stay here in the first place and worry about not being able to live long enough to see the mainland deliver?

THOMAS KWOK, Braemar Hill

Bird flu overblown

I agree with P. A. Crush's letter 'Bird-flu hysteria' (February 17). I cannot believe that no dead birds were found in parks or streets before. The main difference now is that supposedly all dead birds found are tested.

Another difference may be that when a dead bird is found, you will see in the media a photo of at least one police officer standing guard over a box in a cordoned-off area of the street.  When I first saw this on TV, I thought these were bombs. Is there a danger that a dead bird will explode, spraying the area with bacteria?

The priority of the government, and perhaps the media, should be directed to pressing issues such as student suicide, violence at home, road safety, or fining people for spitting and littering.

ANGELA HO, North Point

Bigger flats the draw

I was interested to read the comments of Leung Chun-ying, executive councillor and chairman of DTZ Debenham Tie Leung ('Migration alters housing landscape', February 15). In essence, he drew on anecdotal evidence to conclude that fewer people were buying larger flats in Hong Kong because many of them were spending more time on the mainland.

But could the argument be turned on its head? Are people spending more time on the mainland because of the shortage of affordable, decent-sized homes here? My anecdotal evidence suggests that Mr Leung might be confusing cause and effect. I know three people who have, separately, relocated to Shenzhen in order to have 1,000 sq ft to live in.

DOMINIC QUINNELL, Central

No-car day for HK

When I visited Brussels last year, my son said to me: 'Tomorrow is a 'car-less' day. Only public transport will be allowed on the roads.' On that day, our family took a taxi into central Brussels. As well as buses and cabs, pedestrians and cyclists were everywhere. Grandmothers were on roller skates and other people were on in-line skates  and skateboards. There was horse-drawn transport.

Public buildings were open. Stalls were busy. A farrier was demonstrating how to shoe a horse. There was a lovely, happy atmosphere. It was a 'fun day', when one could wander around breathing less-polluted air. I understand other cities in Europe have followed Brussels' lead. What about it Hong Kong? ('Banish the car', February 20). Should we organise a 'car-less' day?

DAN WATERS, Mid-Levels

We hear you

I refer to the letter 'Hear! Hear! (February 18) concerning the National Theatre of Britain's production of The History Boys in the Hong Kong Arts Festival. We were made aware of some concerns about audibility and the cast was directed to pay special attention to projection and diction. Perhaps another difficulty in distinguishing the dialogue was that some characters used strong regional accents. But we are concerned that audience enjoyment was impaired. We will do our best to prevent this problem in future festival presentations at the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts' Lyric Theatre.

DOUGLAS GAUTIER, executive director, Hong Kong Arts Festival



Chinese denied right to trial in own language