All this talk about Sir Philip Haddon-Cave's 'positive non-intervention' policy seems to me to have completely missed the point. I well remember that the former financial secretary's speech in 1980 was actually signalling an end to laissez-faire. I do not have the resources of a full library to refer to, but I clearly remember that everybody's interpretation at the time was that Sir Philip was signalling to the world that the Hong Kong government would, from then on, intervene in the market if necessary. Sir Philip fully realised the implications of his move, however, and he therefore adopted a softly- softly approach by calling the policy 'positive non-intervention'. It must have racked the brains of his team to come up with such a term. What it really means is that the government will not intervene if the effects of market forces are positive. This meaning was clear for the first 10 years after the policy was introduced, but probably got muddled after Sir Philip retired. And now Donald Tsang Yam-kuen is further confusing the issue by actually equating positive non-intervention with laissez-faire. He would not have got himself into such trouble in the first place had he remembered what it really meant. SUNG NEE, Central Code for 'procrastinate' I refer to Jake van der Kamp's column backing legislator Audrey Eu Yuet-mee's view that the chief executive has not explained what he meant by giving up 'positive non-intervention' ('Our civil-servant government does not really know what it wants', September 20). From the outset it was never clear what former financial secretary Sir Philip Haddon-Cave meant by the term he introduced. Some interpreted it to be a fig leaf used by the colonial government (importantly, Jake, also formed of civil servants) to cover up its bureaucratic procrastination - or habit of waiting till the damage was already done before it intervened. One prime example was the way the colonial government waited until road traffic had slowed to a literal crawl, every day for years on end, before it started building the MTR. So, giving up the fig leaf cannot be explained in a clear-cut (I nearly said 'positive') manner. PETER LOK, Heng Fa Chuen Recipe for disaster Executive councillor Bernard Chan's comments on political appointees are worth further consideration ('Embracing our political future', (September 15). There are many political appointees in government in the US, where President George W. Bush often appoints his close friends to jobs. Many are stupid or incompetent. Think of Michael Brown, who was in charge of the government's emergency response agency during Hurricane Katrina. Mr Brown, who previously worked for the International Arabian Horse Association, resigned from the agency after its disastrous handling of the New Orleans crisis. I hope Mr Chan will take note that political appointees are often incompetent or stupid. NORMAN TAO, Mid-Levels Common humanity Why not use the headline 'Muslim neighbours stop protesters from attacking their Christian neighbours' rather than 'Anti-Pope fallout shakes Palestinian Christians' (September 19)? When I read this story, what I thought deserved emphasising the most was the common humanity of a terrified Christian and her good Muslim neighbours, who bravely stopped violent protesters from attacking her house. MARTIN MURRAY, Wan Chai Divergent voices heard Your editorial 'Divergent voices deserve to be heard' (September 20) criticised Singapore's restrictions on the involvement of civil society organisations (CSOs) at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings. Far from muting divergent voices, Singapore is in favour of constructive debate. Other than disallowing outdoor demonstrations, our arrangements for these groups were no different than those for previous meetings elsewhere. We provided a well-equipped CSO centre in the meeting venue, and accredited members had access to practically the whole meeting venue. Singapore's laws do not allow outdoor demonstrations. We are a multi-ethnic society, and know from bitter experience how easily street protests can degenerate into riots and violence. Hence we provided a highly visible indoor area near the meeting venue for accredited CSOs to demonstrate and have their voices heard by delegates and the media. Out of the 526 activists accredited by the IMF and World Bank, we initially expressed security concerns about 27. But we lifted the ban on 22 of them after the IMF and World Bank raised the matter with us. We support and welcome all CSOs genuinely seeking constructive engagement. Your assertion that the restrictions on CSOs are part of a broader move to stifle political opposition and criticism is baseless. The government has no reason to deprive the opposition of any democratic rights. TOH HOCK GHIM, consul-general of Singapore
