bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

Gifted students don't need any more protection

A Polytechnic University professor has made the curious suggestion of passing a law to safeguard the educational rights of exceptionally talented youngsters ('Law for talented children urged', August 25).

Applied social sciences professor Helen Yu Ku Siu-yin's  proposal was especially  odd since it came right after   nine-year-old March Boedihardjo  was accepted by Baptist University to study mathematics - in which he shows  exceptional talent.

Further,  14-year-old Ho Hoi-lam  was  recently accepted by  Chinese University to study medicine.

What more protection of educational rights do gifted pupils need?

Dr Yu said the new law should prescribe educational programmes for gifted students and prioritise the type of talent favoured by the public. But aren't gifted pupils so unique and individual  that specific  educational programmes must be tailored to suit their needs and development - in a holistic manner,  not only in their area of special talent?

Also, in a pluralistic society, why should the public favour and prioritise  certain talents? Does Dr Yu think that  talents can be manufactured to order?

I'm afraid that, were her suggestion   taken up seriously by our  politicians, I would not be surprised to see a gifted students' commission to follow.

Dr Yu also said the identification and assessment of such talent should be made mandatory by law, in primary and secondary schools and universities, as she reckoned that 'schools aren't bothered about gifted students'.

But it isn't always the case that schools  can't be bothered with gifted students: some schools are not equipped or do not have the resources to develop such talents. At the other extreme, some talented children might not be wanted at schools if they were seen as disruptive in classes.

What purpose would be served by identifying and assessing talented children in Hong Kong schools?

In the university I went to some 30 years ago, talented students excelled  without any  need to be identified and assessed. I don't know why Dr Yu thinks that is needed now.

Alex Tam, Sai Kung

Exploding the biofuel myth

I refer to the article, 'Peat bog destruction highlights major flaw in Kyoto Protocol'  ( August 27). It gives  frightening statistics on the vast environmental nightmare unfolding in Malaysia and Indonesia, where hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of rainforest are being destroyed to plant the disastrous  palm oil monoculture.

This is being done  to profit from the growing demand for this oil as a biofuel. According to Eric Holtz-Gimenez,   executive director of the Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy,  'when the full life cycle of biofuels is considered, from land clearance to consumption, moderate emission savings are outweighed by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation and soil carbon loss; every tonne of palm oil generates 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions - 10 times more than petroleum'.

Meanwhile, the palm oil industry and its supporting governments have embarked on a cynical disinformation campaign - presenting this devastation as 'giving oxygen to the world' and 'creating a home for wildlife'. The rapidly disappearing orang-utan and hundreds of other species would probably disagree.

A.I.A. Smith, Discovery Bay

Odd thinking on a new mega-city

I am surprised that there has been little correspondence regarding the proposed Hong Kong-Shenzhen mega-city.

One think-tank's proposals for the metropolis read  like a leaflet promoting 'Dr Donald's magic potion', which promises to cure all ills.

There are a number of issues the think-tank seems not to have addressed.

Who will govern this mega-city and how will they be elected or appointed?

Will Shenzen become a part of Hong Kong's  'one country, two systems', or will this city  become part of 'one country, one system'?

Where will the mainland border be located, and will the citizens of this mega-city be able to travel at will throughout the whole of the city?

How will the citizens be taxed, and which currency will be used? Will it be fully convertible?

Is this just another ploy by Beijing to delay universal suffrage in Hong Kong because it would be 'too difficult' to implement?

The think-tank has not given the matter much thought.

If  this is the quality of its thinking, I think it  should either think again - or disband.

Michael Jenkins, Central

The hilarity of TV censors

First, I burst out laughing. Then I felt an overwhelming sense of irritation. Then a feeling of utter nausea.

On Tuesday  night, I was innocently watching a film on cable. One of the scenes took place inside a Venetian palazzo. Hung on the walls were some Renaissance paintings.

Then suddenly, as the camera scanned the canvasses, all of the breasts and thighs on the paintings were blurred out! That's Hong Kong censorship for you. It was of course laughable.

The irritation came because we try so hard to tell and sell to the world the idea that Hong Kong is a world-class city.

And the nausea followed because I cannot imagine that our government is actually employing an army of censors to carry out these blocking blurs, which presumably they do on every single minute of broadcast!

Apart from the prudishness, it screams out with total ignorance. Somebody must do something about this hilariously delirious behaviour.

David Tang, Central

More childcare centres needed

We have working parents in Hong Kong who have a hard time coping with work and children ('Home alone children suffer serious burns', August 27). They are willing to pay for childcare if it is  available and if the fees are not  prohibitively high.

We have the Employees Retraining Board offering courses on childcare, but at the same time we have an acute shortage of childcare centres. Although such  centres are not easy to run, and it is not easy to qualify as a carer,  it is obvious that the basic ingredients are all here.

What we lack is a government bold enough to facilitate the establishment of more childcare centres. We are not talking about yet another social welfare initiative. Rather, this is  about pegging supply to demand,  easing  unemployment and  unlocking a labour force that will otherwise remain dormant at home. More importantly, we are talking about preventing children being left home alone.

Our  officials must overcome the psychological hurdle of positive non-interventionism. There are many places that the 'invisible hand' of a free market cannot  reach. One of them is the locked home of the two badly burned toddlers in Tuen Mun.

Jonathan Man, Kwai Chung

Pineapple buns

It is interesting that  egg tarts and pineapple buns are said to be facing extinction ('Fast food could crush delicacies', August 21).

They certainly don't appear to be in any danger of disappearing from Chinatown here in Chicago.

David Gillham Bolingbrook, Illinois, US



Letters