Ronald Ling Pak-ki, 18, SKH Bishop Mok Sau Tseng Secondary School As an international metropolis, Hong Kong upholds a few core values, including freedom of speech. We care about human rights. For the sake of our reputation, the government should not allow human rights violators to own any property here. Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, reportedly bought a luxury apartment in Tai Po recently. He was ranked as the seventh-worst dictator in the world by Parade magazine. He intimidated opposing political parties. His policies have led to hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. He also seized thousands of farms owned by white people and was accused of being racist towards white people because of their wealth. What Mr Mugabe did should have violated laws in Hong Kong. We should even place a travel ban on him following the example of the European Union. One may argue that, because of the free flow of capital in Hong Kong, even a human rights violator should be allowed to own property here. However, such a person might have broken loads of laws and the money used in property transactions may be involved in money laundering. Anthea Wong Ka-yee, 17, Hong Kong International School Suspected human rights violators should be allowed to own property in Hong Kong. Land is a very valuable resource in all major cities and there is always fierce competition for properties. In my opinion, everybody should have the right to own property. There is no international law that prevents people from owning property. Even criminals should be allowed to invest in properties. A human rights violator falls into the category of law whereas owning property falls into the category of investment. There is no relationship between the two. Allowing or not allowing a human rights violator to own property is based on moral standards. There are various degrees of human rights violation. It could simply mean suppressing someone?s freedom of speech or it could be something as severe as torturing or murdering people. How can the government find a fair way to differentiate between human rights violators who should own property and those who should not? Who should have the authority to make this moral judgment?
