bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Letters

Education system needs to change
What is the point of education? To get into university? To secure a stable job and income? I beg to differ.
The aim of education should be to nurture our children to be future pillars who actively contribute to society. Sadly, what I have observed is the emergence of an increasingly exam-oriented education system.
Students shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to learn interpersonal, leadership and communication skills, which are essential for future careers. Rarely have I seen these elements included in the current syllabus.
I am not saying academic knowledge is insignificant, but a balance should be struck between academic accomplishments and whole-person development. A stronger emphasis should be placed on the cultivation of moral and ethical values. As a student, I do not want future generations to be robots trained for exams.
It is time for the government and Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority to reflect on the current education system. If the situation remains unchanged, youngsters will have a lack of social awareness. Is this really what society wants to see?
Darren Tang, Tai Po
 
Thorium reactors only partial solution
Regarding the news that Chinese scientists have been urged to develop a new thorium nuclear reactor by 2024, I think coal-fired power plants are bad for our health.
The Chinese government is trying to increase the proportion of nuclear-generated electricity to reduce smog, which is produced by coal-fired plants.
As about 70 per cent of China's electricity comes from burning coal, this explains why the air quality in China is so poor.
Nuclear power plants can undoubtedly generate electricity without much air pollution. However, this method is still not pollution free. The thorium molten-salt power plants still produce radioactive waste.
There may not be a completely pollution-free and efficient electricity generating method in the foreseeable future. However, considering that China has such a large population, if everyone used less electricity per day, power plants would produce much less pollution.
The Chinese government is stopping one form of pollution by causing another, choosing the lesser evil, perhaps.
Jaden Ho Lok-hin, Tseung Kwan O
 
Legislators must respect civil rights
The citizens of Hong Kong deserve a great deal of credit for their opposition to Article 23, a dubious part of the Basic Law, crafted to make the legal system a tool of the ruling regime's obsession with state control and national security.
Anyone with a knowledge of history knows that this obsession with centralised power has been humanity's worst curse. Many survivors alive today recall the terrible injuries and suffering inflicted by military-obsessed men who put the supremacy of the state and the might of their party apparatus over the lives, dignity and freedom of their people.
We must always remember that the only legitimacy of a government or ruling party is its commitment to the lasting good, welfare, health, rights and freedoms of its citizens, not to its own benefit or perpetuity in power and especially not to its expensive and threatening weaponry.
It is shocking to realise that some politicians still embrace the vitiated and inhumane doctrines of Marx and Lenin, and even worse, the tactics of Stalin. Must we still live in the 19th and 20th centuries?
We Hongkongers are absolutely right in opposing the imposition of state security legislation. Why? Because the state is too secure and we the citizens are too insecure. The people are the ones who need protection. The state, with its millions of soldiers, its deadly weapons, its security apparatus, its spies and militias, its controlled courts and judges, its arbitrary arrests and detention, its excessive death penalty, its venal and cruel police, its work camps and prisons has too much. Does one feed a ravenous tiger?
In July 2003, some 500,000 Hong Kong citizens took to the streets in a peaceful protest against unneeded and unwise legislation. However, we now again see politicians toadying up to those who worship state and party power.
Some observers predict that China will be the last country in the world to reform, to uphold the human rights of its people and to embrace democracy. Why do they make such a sad prediction? They claim it's because China's long autocratic, imperial history has conditioned its people to bow meekly before authority, to submit to strong rulers and to obey their unjust demands. Submission becomes habitual.
Let's hope the patriotic citizens of Hong Kong and China can work together to reject this harmful and self-destructive legacy. We must always place the dignity and rights of people over the repression of the state. Let's support legislators who respect our civil rights and hard-won freedoms, not politicians who ignore or despise them.
J. Garner, Sham Shui Po
 
Educational facilities flout high-floor ban
Kelly Yang is absolutely correct that the Education Bureau should not lift the ban that bars educational facilities from operating more than 24 metres above ground ("A step too far", May 14). She rightly points out that children cannot reasonably be expected to evacuate a facility located on a high floor.
However, what was not mentioned in her article is the fact that this ban is routinely flouted throughout the city.
The Universal Trade Centre, the building in which I am a tenant, for example, is a 31-storey office block that has a myriad of educational facilities throughout the building, including the top floor. Some of these facilities serve very young children. Regardless of age, each child is accompanied by at least one adult and in some cases two, for example, a helper and grandmother.
A fire would prove disastrous, as the stairways are not the wide variety found in schools and were also not designed for such an excessive number of people. It would be impossible for all the children to make it to safety.
I have called both the Education and Fire Services departments on multiple occasions to ask why these businesses are permitted to operate in such a building, endangering not only the lives of the students but the other tenants in the building as well.
Perhaps an official from each department could respond through these columns.
Christine Houston, Central
 
Use arrival tax to curb visitor numbers
It is time for the Hong Kong government to reduce the number of mainland visitors.
Tourism brings economic benefits to Hong Kong; however, it also creates inconvenience. Locals are finding it hard to buy some daily necessities and public transport is overcrowded.
I would suggest an arrival tax of up to HK$200 to curb numbers of mainland visitors.
I don't think it would undermine Hong Kong's image. The charge would screen out travellers visiting the city without a specific purpose. People would welcome this policy. Shops would also welcome it because their customers could afford the charge.
Zoey Chan, Lai Chi Kok


Letters to the Editor, May 25, 2014

Coal-fired power plants add to pollution in China. Photo: AP

Height restriction for school premises protects children's safety

Secretary for Education Eddie Ng said that the bureau is reconsidering a requirement that schools and kindergartens be located no higher than 24 metres above ground. Photo: Felix Wong

Opinion

What is the point of education? To get into university? To secure a stable job and income? I beg to differ.


Letters to the Editor, May 25, 2014

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}What is the point of education? To get into university? To secure a stable job and income? I beg to differ.

What is the point of education? To get into university? To secure a stable job and income? I beg to differ.