UNDER the somewhat misleading title, ''Why Sofield Had To Go'' (Sunday Morning Post, June 5) Hong Kong Polytechnic director Professor Poon Chung-kwong claims to have ''compelling reasons to end [principal lecturer Trevor Sofield's] contract'', but declines to tell us what these reasons might be.
He defends this secrecy by indicating ''legal implications'' are at stake. But why should keeping the substance of his accusations secret release him from the legal consequences of his action? Being suddenly sacked for secret ''compelling reasons'' severely damages Mr Sofield's reputation, and his ability to get another job, since it implies a flaw in his character or ability. Does the law then defend us against unproven and invalid accusations if they are specified, but not if they are implied, but unspecified? It is surely contrary to the norm of legal systems to publicly declare a person guilty and punish him without even a specific accusation, let alone a case being brought against him, or his having the liberty to defend himself. Professor Poon seems to be asking us to accept unquestioningly the proposition, ''if he was not a wrong-doer I would not have sacked him''.
Many may also be wondering how coincidental it is that secret ''compelling reasons'' for Mr Sofield's sacking suddenly happened to come to light just at the time when he was taking a leading role in exposing irregularities in his department.
GEOFFREY ATKINSON Kowloon