I'm not sure what 'positive non-interventionism' means, if it means anything at all, but it strikes me as odd that any government would see intervention as a bad thing. The role of any government is to govern. A genuine government which represents its people has certain basic responsibilities - many of which the Hong Kong administration does not perform because it does not 'intervene' enough.
Its most important interventions should involve providing affordable, dignified housing for all those living within its borders. Education should be provided free of charge, from primary through to tertiary level, otherwise it will remain the preserve of the rich. Health care should be free. Everyone should have the right to work, and the right to a liveable wage (far too many workers in Hong Kong merely survive, as opposed to live).
These provisions could be seen as socialist. If that is the case, then Hong Kong needs to develop a system of socialism. When we cast our eyes on the riches of Hong Kong, the opulence and decadence of a small percentage of the population, can anyone seriously claim that basic humanitarian demands such as jobs, affordable housing, free health care and education are beyond our means?
JACK MUIR, Lamma
RTHK funding puzzle
The public broadcasting review panel's recommendation that RTHK continue to receive 100 per cent funding from the government for three years, tapering off to 80 per cent within 10 years, defies logic ('Broadcast panel chief defends its proposals', September 28).
Surely if a future independent public broadcaster deserves government funding, it should be 100 per cent funded ad infinitum? Otherwise, it should not be funded by the government at all. There is no logic for something in between.