The University of Hong Kong recently conferred honorary doctoral degrees upon a number of outstanding individuals, including former Chinese University vice-chancellor Charles Kao Kuen and philanthropist Tin Ka-ping. Kao's work in fibre optics changed the world of information technology. Industrialist Tin has devoted his life to education. The awards pay tribute to their immense contributions to society and promote humanism and the notion of a caring society. John Chan Cho-chak was also one of the recipients for his contributions to society. But the ridiculous thing was that the Employers' Federation of Hong Kong, of which Chan is chairman, sent a letter to its members on the same day he received the honour, urging companies to review contracts with their staff and reminding them that they are not required to pay for staff meal breaks or rest days under the minimum wage law that comes into effect on May 1. The letter effectively suggested employers change the payment calculations from a monthly to an hourly basis and exclude meal hours and days off, leading to a de facto cut in pay for workers, with total disregard for their welfare. Chan was obviously trying to suggest that employers should exploit legal loopholes to save money and rip off low-paid workers. His blatant disregard for social justice and corporate social responsibility is an insult to fellow recipients and a slap in the face to the university who handed him the degree of Doctor of Social Sciences. Hong Kong is facing the serious problem of a widening wealth gap. The rising number of working poor, according to Central Policy Unit head Lau Siu-kai, is a ticking time bomb ready to explode and rock social stability. The minimum wage law can ease our social tension and improve social harmony. Setting a wage floor at HK$28 an hour is not unreasonable, considering today's high inflation rates. The federation's heartless advice to its members is a serious issue for 270,000 low-paid workers. The employment and minimum wage laws do not stipulate that employers have to pay workers for their rest days and meal breaks. The law says any non-work-related payment should not be calculated as part of wages. But it also says that employers must pay workers for public holidays, annual leave and sick leave. Monthly paid workers are also entitled to paid meal breaks. It wasn't the first time we'd witnessed such ruthless behaviour by employers. A few months ago, Cafe de Coral chairman Michael Chan Yue-kwong, a member of the Provisional Minimum Wage Commission, suggested that paid meal breaks for workers should be scrapped. It led to a huge public outcry, and the company withdrew the proposal. When that controversy erupted, Labour and Welfare Secretary Matthew Cheung Kin-chung was nowhere to be seen. Only when the dust settled did he come out to try to claim credit by saying the government communicated with both sides throughout the crisis. At that time, I had criticised Cheung for failing in his duty because he should have been more vocal at the outset and showed the government was serious about protecting workers' welfare. Cheung doesn't seem to have learned his lesson. Again he has avoided commenting on the federation's blatant challenge to the minimum wage law. Cheung gives the impression he is too scared to offend or confront the powerful business sector. As a principal official, Cheung is accountable to the general public. But his behaviour gives the false impression that the administration takes sides with employers, stirring more allegations of business-government collusion. This time, the government cannot afford to wait for the controversy to die down. Cheung must give clear indications of the government's stance on the issue. If not handled properly it could affect the long-term effectiveness of the minimum wage law and deny the right of workers to earn a decent living. Albert Cheng King-hon is a political commentator