Tuesday, March 27, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Cautionary lesson for seafood lovers



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Our seemingly insatiable appetite for seafood is helping empty the world's waters of fish. The guide released yesterday by WWF Hong Kong is therefore a welcome weapon in the armoury to educate us in making more sustainable eating choices. A visit to wet markets or the seafood section of supermarkets does not give the impression that our fish supplies are drying up. Only those involved in the industry or in conservation would know otherwise; that year by year, suppliers have to widen their search as traditional sources are fished out.
As the world's biggest per capita consumers of seafood - and with affluence, increasingly looking for more exotic species - we have been largely oblivious to our appetites driving some varieties into extinction. Fish farms have gone some way to meeting our demand, but cannot repair the damaged marine ecosystems that overfishing has created.

  
WWF's seafood guide, showing which species are recommended and which should involve a second thought or be avoided, is a good start in helping people make informed choices. That it has come from a non-governmental organisation rather than the government or the catering industry shows just how unconcerned those with the ability to control overfishing seemingly are on the issue.

Yet bringing native species back to our waters and making fish that were enjoyed by past generations again available at the dinner or banquet table is a matter that involves all groups.

The government has joined the process with discussion on the naming of species, partly prompted by the health concerns over oil fish recently being sold as cod. Catfish is being sold as Vietnamese sole and river cobbler, more attractive names, but not indicative of their species. If fish are given standardised names that better reflect their species, we can make better choices. Such efforts from authorities need to be stepped up.

Similarly, restaurants can help by more carefully choosing which fish to put on menus. More exotic varieties will make more profit, but also will lead to species declining in number - and ecosystem damage. Those farming fish also can assist through better catering to local tastes or even directing consumers towards more sustainable choices.

The WWF's guide is a useful educational tool in the battle to stop overfishing. Its distribution through as wide as possible a breadth of the community will raise awareness that some fish, for various biological reasons, are more vulnerable to overfishing.

Armed with such information, we will be able to make better choices when shopping for seafood or dining out. But the process of stopping overfishing of particular species and regenerating our damaged sub-tropical waters will take the involvement of all other sectors with a stake in the fishing industry, the government included. Only through working together can the change that is needed come about.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZC6M6AQZE.html

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Time to move on to other heritage issues



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Debate over whether Queen's Pier should be preserved rather than dismantled to make way for a road misses the point about heritage; we should be keeping for the sake of collective memory and future generations the aspects of society worth saving, not anything and everything.
As symbolic as the pier has become for some conservation groups, they should move their focus to more worthwhile heritage issues. The Antiquities and Monuments Office has graded 496 such sites according to perceived importance and the government should be dedicating itself to formulating a general preservation policy in consultation with the community.

  
Before the adjacent Star Ferry pier was demolished, a case could have been made for Queen's Pier's preservation. It certainly fits the category of collective memory, being where those recently married at the nearby City Hall registry office often had photographs taken and the point from which many a weekend boating trip in the harbour and beyond departed from and returned to. Historically, from the time of being built in 1953, it was the traditional first landing point for arriving British colonial governors - just as previous Queen's piers had been prior to harbour reclamation.

As a structure worth preserving, though, it now has little value with the Star Ferry pier and buildings gone and plans well progressed to redevelop the area with a shopping mall and road. This makes government proposals that it should be moved out of context, metal railing by metal railing, stone by stone, to another location - as happened with Murray House - a moot point. With collective memory, the setting is important, not the specific location itself.

Herein lies the crux of the heritage discussion: that authorities do not properly understand the criteria for what should be kept and how it should be preserved. That is why a proper consultation process is important.

Rows over the actions of the government's Urban Renewal Authority in putting development ahead of preservation highlight the problem. It plans to tear down Wan Chai's Lee Tung Street, nicknamed Wedding Card Street, and part of the 140-year-old outdoor market in Peel, Graham and Gage streets in Central. These are not single structures, as the Antiquities and Monuments Office lists, but neighbourhoods with a distinct character. There are dozens of other examples - and the harbourfront embracing Star Ferry and Queen's piers was among them.

Further revealing an insensitivity to heritage, the authority wants to replace the tenement buildings in Wedding Card Street and the open-air market in Central with replica buildings. The same strategy was used with building the new Star Ferry pier; a mock early 20th century design that fools nobody as to its age, while telling visitors of our apparent lack of feeling for the past.

This may well have been the case in Hong Kong's pre-1997 days, when society was more transient. But generations have now realised this city's potential and are putting roots down, wanting this to be their permanent home. With this change comes a sense of belonging and the need to preserve that which is near and dear - buildings, places and culture chief among them.

Prior to the Star Ferry debacle, Queen's Pier was among such memories, but a lack of government forethought has changed that. It is too late to save the site and we must now move on - with the lesson that has been learned central to formulating a robust preservation policy.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZV60IAQZE.html

Thursday, March 29, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Openness can head off a new space race



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   The announcement of a Sino-Russian mission to Mars in 2009 is further proof of China's burgeoning technological prowess. But while such an achievement is something to be proud of, Beijing must temper such developments with caution to avoid a space race with the US and other competitors exploring the solar system.
Venturing into space is a multi-faceted enterprise, after all; apart from instilling national pride and being for the purposes of peaceful inquiry, it also is costly and has an unavoidable military dimension. Rockets and satellites serve dual purposes in this regard and arouse suspicion, just as they did when they were central to the cold war space race between the US and the Soviet Union.

  

While the two superpowers drove one another to ever greater heights in exploring space for a quarter-century, they also came ever closer to war as their technological breakthroughs translated into military developments. China must tread carefully to avoid a recurrence of this fearful period in world history.

This does not mean that China's scientists should refrain from building upon their already momentous achievements. In 2003, China became only the third nation - after the US and Soviet Union - to put a person in space and the feat was repeated the following year. There are now plans to put a Chinese astronaut on the moon and develop and launch a space station.

The deal President Hu Jintao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin signed in Moscow on Monday to co-operate on the mission to Mars and its moon Phobos will cement China's membership of the exclusive club of space-exploring nations. But the deal also will spur rivalries in space. As proof of this, in January 2004 US President George W. Bush launched a new vision for his country's space programme, with plans to put an astronaut on Mars and to return to the moon - just three months after Yang Liwei became the first Chinese person in space. Japan and the European Union also have been stepping up their space research, budgeting billions of dollars for new rocket and equipment designs. India says it will launch an unmanned mission to the moon next year.

A major driving force of the cold war space race was a lack of openness between the Americans and Soviets. There were shades of a return to that era in January when Beijing secretly tested a ballistic missile by blowing up an old satellite, scattering debris that had the potential to damage other satellites. The central government was roundly condemned by the US, Japan and others for carrying out the test. It initially remained silent, but after two weeks admitted carrying it out - behaviour that has to be avoided for the sake of global stability. The US, however, stands accused of hypocrisy because - unlike China and Russia - it refuses to support an international agreement banning the deployment of weapons in space.

China's achievements, although they follow in the footsteps of the US and Russia, are significant. It is among the space elite and this is a reason for pride. Each new step into space will boost the country's international standing. But China must not fall into the trap of putting competition and accolades ahead of those on the ground. Each yuan budgeted for spending in space has to be weighed against how it might be used to alleviate poverty and provide essential infrastructure. Nor should China's space ventures be anything other than peaceful. Keeping technological developments transparent and ensuring openness is essential to preventing another space race.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZEY8GVTZE.html

Friday, March 30, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Australia's rainforest initiative not enough



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Australia would seem an unlikely partner in fighting global warming given its status as the only developed nation other than the US refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Yet its prime minister, John Howard, has launched a fund to protect the world's rainforests, an idea which, if it gains momentum, would be a valuable weapon in the battle to stop temperatures from rising.
Mr Howard's rejection of Kyoto is flawed; his belief that the pact requiring governments to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming will hurt his country's economy is short-sighted. Only by working together can nations stop the world from heating up, and participation of major polluters such as Australia and the US is essential in attaining this objective.

  
Until these holdout governments realise their mistake, however, any strategy they offer as an alternative to Kyoto has to be given due consideration. The project launched yesterday by the Australian leader is certainly a sound addition to Kyoto.

The world's rainforests are a scientifically proven lung that suck up the most prevalent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and release the breath of life, oxygen. But demand for timber and agricultural land is causing a rapid decrease in their area, upsetting the balance of delicate ecosystems, causing the decline or even extinction of animal and plant species and, in the process, contributing to climate change.

Mr Howard's fund, launched with an initial contribution of US$160 million, would help nations such as Indonesia and Brazil better manage their rainforests. The money would allow replanting of trees and better satellite and radar monitoring to prevent illegal logging and clearing. That the initiative has been taken and other governments have been contacted to contribute shows that this is more than an election-year gimmick for the Australian leader.

Indonesia, with Asia's biggest rainforests, is particularly in need of such help. At least 2.1 million hectares of trees valued at US$4 billion are being lost each year to illegal loggers, who ship the pillaged logs mostly to Malaysia and mainland China. Conservation groups the Environmental Investigation Agency and Telapak said in a report this week that corrupt police and military officials were preventing efforts by authorities to bring those accused to heel. Indonesia, some experts claim, will have lost most of its rainforests by 2022 unless tough action is taken.

International co-operation through the Australian-initiated fund would go some way towards protecting the world's rainforests. If managed properly, a vital weapon in decreasing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be assured and consequently, the degree of temperature rise lessened.

As laudable as this effort is, however, it does not abrogate Australia of the responsibility to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases. More than 80 per cent of the nation's electricity is generated by highly polluting coal-fired power plants and the nation also is the world's biggest exporter of coal. Per person, Australians generate more climate change-causing pollutants than any other population in the world.

Mr Howard has taken a bold step and launched a project with the potential to make significant inroads in the battle to protect the world's rainforests and the animals and plants within them. But if he really wants to stop the threat of climate change, he also must embrace the wider standards adopted by other developed nations.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZ3YCGVTZE.html

Monday, April 2, 2007

Jobs for the boys


PHILIP BOWRING
   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     


Forget for a moment the extraordinary, but not uncommon, arrogance of the bureaucracy as illustrated by the Hong Kong Institute of Education affair. Forget for a moment wondering whether a person apparently as obsessed with power as Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun is the appropriate person to run the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which is supposed to put principles before power. Now, stop to consider the issue of where political horse-trading ends and corruption begins.
Almost the first act of Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen following his election - by one in 10,000 Hongkongers - was to appoint Liberal Party leader James Tien Pei-chun to head the Hong Kong Tourism Board. It was widely reported that the replacement of one Liberal party legislator, Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, by another was related to the policy and voting behaviour of Mr Tien and his party.

Personally, I have no idea whether these reports were true. But the fact is that they have been made and, as far as I am aware, not denied. In any event, it is surprising to a lay observer that Mr Tien was appointed, given both the number of hats he already wears and his lack of experience with the major industries in the tourism sector.

But Mr Tsang seems not to care very much about whether public offices should be handed out as political rewards or to satisfy the vanity of pro-government politicians. The Tourism Board is a publicly funded body that is supposed to promote an industry which affects all Hongkongers. It should not be considered a political gift.

The appointment is all too typical of Hong Kong's "small-circle" politics and the handing out of jobs to senior ex-bureaucrats and members of prominent families. It was similarly typical in the row over the management of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation when its chairman, Michael Tien Puk-sun - brother of James - was able to prevail over professional managers. Mr Tien behaved like an executive chairman or the owner of a family fiefdom rather than as the non-executive chairman of a company owned by Hongkongers. Yet Mr Tsang allowed him to prevail.

It is perhaps no coincidence, either, that yet another scion of a famous and very rich family should be at the centre of a row in which the executive and bureaucracy seek to dictate policies as well as use a web of board appointees and assorted shoe-shiners to get its way regardless. I personally have no view on whether the HKIEd should be merged with Chinese University. But the issue was worthy of a public airing from which Arthur Li Kwok-cheung - as former chancellor of the university - would have done well to distance himself.

Following the election, Mr Tsang acknowledged that officialdom was often remote from public concerns, and promised to try to rectify this. That was an admirable sentiment. He may not be able to get very far in persuading Beijing to allow a faster extension of the franchise - even assuming he actually wants that.

But there is a huge amount he can do, if he really wants, to widen the base of power in Hong Kong - namely, by appointing people from outside the charmed circle of ex-bureaucrats and members of leading families.

In fact, he promised to do just that some time ago, but nothing much appears to have changed. Advisory bodies consist largely of people who can be relied on to say "yes" to government proposals.

There are other things he could do to make Hong Kong a more open and more free market society. First, raise the retirement age for the bureaucracy to 65, and halt the practice of moving 55-year-old "retired" bureaucrats into executive jobs with government-linked companies.

Second, set about abolishing some of the quasi-non-governmental organisations that have flourished in recent years to the detriment of an open economy and plural distribution of power.

These include the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation, a totally unnecessary body in an economy as well banked and financially serviced as Hong Kong. The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority is a useless bureaucracy that wastes money and perpetuates an uncompetitive and high-cost scheme. Then there is Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing - which should be fully privatised and its regulatory function passed to the Securities and Futures Commission. There is also a host of lesser bodies that hand out funds or favours to a chosen few.

Finally, there is the Tourism Board itself. It is closely associated with both massive misallocations of government funds, such as Hong Kong Disneyland, and failures to resist bureaucrats' destruction of distinctive local attractions in favour of yet more roads and shopping malls.

Philip Bowring is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZDSOUTYZE.html

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Tourism depends on untarnished reputation



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Hong Kong's international reputation as a shopping paradise depends on trust and we should rightly be concerned whenever there is even a hint that it has been eroded. Claims that two jewellery shops sold mainland tourists items that were not as they were advertised must therefore be fully investigated.
The Hong Kong Tourism Board has rightly been quick to start this process, contacting mainland counterparts. Following trouble last year with unscrupulous tour operators and the dubious practices of some guides, getting to the bottom of the allegations is essential.

  
One store has denied the allegations made in a China Central Television report and the other has yet to comment. Both have been the subject of a number of previous complaints by shoppers, but we should not be hasty in declaring wrongdoing until inquiries have been carried out. Whatever the outcome, the incident serves as a reminder that constant attention has to be paid by authorities to the quality of goods and services offered here.

Tourism is a mainstay of our economy, bringing in billions of dollars a year. Sales from retail outlets comprise a large part. Ensuring that what is being sold is genuine and marked clearly so that customers are certain of what they are buying is therefore important. This is especially so for mainland visitors. Fake products abound across the border and the authenticity of items can sometimes be difficult to determine. Hong Kong is a favoured destination because of the rigorous measures taken to keep out fakes.

That does not prevent dishonest selling, of course. As these alleged incidents highlight, only a well-trained eye can determine the difference between gold varieties and the more expensive platinum or differentiate between certain types of gemstones.

With mainland people comprising an ever-increasing share of our tourist numbers, and their rising affluence boosting spending power, protecting our image as a city of honest retailers is essential. Suggestions to the contrary must be dealt with seriously.

There are unscrupulous people in the retail sector the world over and Hong Kong has its share. Watchdog groups, the Consumer Council among them, and enforcement bodies such as the police, devote considerable resources to keeping cheats to a minimum. Because of their lack of local knowledge, tourists are easier targets for dishonest shopkeepers. The Quality Tourism Services and quality mark schemes have been put in place to guide visitors to shops with a proven track record in honest service.

Consumer confidence can generally be assured when shopping in Hong Kong. Nonetheless, the measures taken by authorities to keep unscrupulous retailers out of the market place can never be foolproof, as we occasionally find. Tough action must therefore be taken against those found to be cheating the system. Accordingly, penalties need to be harsh and examples made of those caught breaking the rules.

Tourism is a fickle business, especially in a globalised world where impressions spread quickly. Our position as Southeast Asia's foremost tourism destination is grounded in hard work and it must be protected at all costs.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZ4QUWTYZE.html

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
A small victory for property owners



   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   The three-year standoff between Chongqing authorities, developers and the owner of a two-storey house has ended peacefully with compensation being paid and the demolition crew doing its job. Such incidents happen the world over every day and cause barely a ripple to any but those involved. On the mainland, however, where the fabric of society is under strain amid the breakneck speed of economic development, here was a symbol of the issues of concern that gave cause for public debate.
Authorities listened. Whereas in thousands of other property disputes they have sided with developers, using brute force to drag away dissenters - who have sometimes been killed in the ensuing violence - this time they negotiated and all sides went away satisfied.

  
Chongqing's officials are to be commended for their perseverance. Their approach is a lesson for other authorities and developers nationwide. But such an ending would perhaps not have been possible were it not for the media attention the incident drew on the mainland and abroad.

The so-called nail house, sticking out defiantly on a hill of land in the middle of a pit where the 279 other buildings that had occupied the site had stood, became a symbol of the disenfranchisement of land holders thanks to the internet - and pervasively so, despite authorities' censorship efforts. Public interest was so great that the state media was forced to cover the event.

That the homeowners were able to hold out for the best deal was evidence of the possibilities of the new China - but raised questions about whether their action was justified, how they had managed to stay while others had left, and the balance between property rights and economic development. Some of these may have been answered by the property ownership law, approved last month by the National People's Congress.

But the matter also answers some of the questions officials have been asking about how to bring about the harmonious society that President Hu Jintao and other senior leaders are so eager for. The required approach is clear: through transparency, understanding and negotiation.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZC0YWTYZE.html

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

OBSERVER
Sending the wrong signal on RTHK


FRANK CHING
   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   When the government last year appointed a panel to look into public service broadcasting, there was strong speculation that its real purpose was to bring RTHK to heel and turn it into a government mouthpiece. Defenders of RTHK - and there were many - demanded loudly that the government continue to honour the broadcaster's editorial independence.
The panel's chairman, Raymond Roy Wong, was taken aback by the vociferousness of the demands. He assured all and sundry that the committee would respect freedom of the press, and that it had no intention of weakening or dismembering RTHK. During the year-long discussion, the public assumed that the committee was going to come up with a way to end RTHK's status as a government department and turn it into a genuine public service broadcaster.

  
It came as a great surprise, therefore, when the committee's report recommended the creation from scratch of a body that would have nothing at all to do with RTHK - except to take over all its functions as a public service broadcaster. What would become of RTHK? The committee's report does not spell it out in so many words, but the impression is inescapable: RTHK's intended fate is to become a government mouthpiece.

The committee's report said, "any proposal to modify RTHK into a public broadcaster [would pre-empt the government's] decision on what role it may assign to RTHK, as a government department"; and that "falls outside the committee's terms of reference". This is very strange. Many groups and individuals called for precisely such a proposal. Yet the committee did not see fit to declare that it could produce no such thing.

The committee was set up to recommend "an appropriate arrangement for the provision" of public service broadcasting in Hong Kong. So its members would apparently have been perfectly within their remit to propose that the main public service broadcaster, RTHK, should be transformed into the new broadcasting entity.

If this was not an option from day one, why did the committee not make that clear? Why string the public along when the committee had no intention of considering any such proposals? Why not say immediately that its terms of reference precluded it from doing so? The committee says it did not want to pre-empt any government decision on what role to assign to RTHK. And yet, in its report, it does exactly that: there is a whole section entitled, "The role of RTHK."

The report, in fact, proposes that RTHK be stripped of all its public broadcasting functions. It then speaks of "the reduced role of RTHK". Presumably, that role is serving as the government's mouthpiece.

No one needed the committee to come up with abstract principles of what a public broadcaster should be. What was needed was a practical solution to the current problem, which was RTHK's ambiguous status. There has been much talk in recent months about the importance of "collective memory". RTHK has been broadcasting since the 1920s, and generations of Hongkongers grew up with it.

It is an indelible part of the city's collective memory. It would be sacrilegious to dismember RTHK and turn it into a government mouthpiece. Despite the committee's proposals, this does not have to happen.

After studying the report, the government will issue a consultation paper. The final decision, therefore, should lie in the hands of the public. There is no reason why the consultation paper couldn't propose, as one option, transforming RTHK from a government department into an independent entity - Hong Kong's public broadcaster.

This is an option with a great deal of public support. If the government omits it from the consultation paper, the consultation will be seen as an exercise in which the government has already decided the outcome.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. frank.ching@scmp.com



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZBNL7E50F.html

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
TV restrictions not the way to build harmony



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Mainland Chinese have dozens of television channels to choose from, but for all their choice, they increasingly have little of interest to watch as they unwind after a hard day's work. A stream of government broadcasting regulations supposedly aimed at promoting morals, culture and social stability has been steadily putting paid to any notion that when it comes to the airwaves, more makes for merrier.
For a nation on the cusp of holding the world's premier sporting event, the Olympic Games, this is the wrong signal to be sending out. Openness and variety should be foremost on the minds of officials, not censorship.

  
The objective of the directives is, as the State Administration of Radio Film and Television indicated in making its latest order that stations shun vulgarity, to "promote core socialist values and cultivate a harmonious cultural environment". This is apparently achieved through "quality and innovative programming, and outstanding ideological, artistic and attractive works to draw viewers".

A flick through the more than 70 television channels available in most cities reveals the result of such orders: station after station showing a dreary lineup of programmes, often different episodes of the same one, with conformity rather than innovation at the core of programming. There are some stimulating and light-hearted moments but even these offerings are being gradually restricted.

In January, satellite television networks were ordered to reserve the main evening time-slots for dramas that portrayed China in a positive light. Last August, television shows were banned from featuring extramarital affairs or divorces. Sex, drugs, violence and crime fights can be seen only after 11pm. Even wildly popular reality shows such as Super Girl - which drew a record 400 million viewers for its final last year - are restricted to being aired over 2½ months a season and only three stations can show them at any one time.

Authorities have been particularly critical of the Super Girl talent show, which has been lambasted as "low brow". That it has pioneered the concept on the mainland of democracy through its process of allowing viewers to choose winners, attracted unprecedented advertising revenue, challenged concepts of talent and gender norms and made stars of contestants has not sat well with a government holding a dim view of popular culture.

More to officials' liking are period costume dramas, documentaries and classical music concerts. These, they believe, are more attuned to culture, ethics and harmony.

There is, of course, another reason for their moves: the forthcoming 17th Communist Party congress, where a leadership shuffle is expected. Keeping society on a safe, even keel in the run-up is seen by officials as important.

For mainlanders, the moves are disconcerting, coming as they do on the coattails of the openness to new ideas ushered in by economic liberalisation. But the mainland has moved too far along the path of development to retreat into the ways of the past. Discontent, not harmony, will be the result of restricting wishes.

As important, though, are international perceptions. China's integration with the global community is well advanced and will be sealed by next year's Beijing Olympics. Dull and obviously state-controlled television offerings will tell the hundreds of thousands of foreign visitors expected that the mainland is not the forward-thinking place they might have been expecting.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZVVLONB0F.html

Thursday, April 12, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
HK should travel the two-wheeled path



   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   In a city such as Hong Kong, where traffic congestion wastes time and the problem of air pollution is on everyone's mind, employing the favoured European solution - the bicycle - makes sense. Yet our government has determined that two wheels are mostly not a good way of getting from place to place and has essentially reduced this mode of transport to a recreational vehicle.
The reasons stated in Transport and Planning Department reports are that the terrain is not conducive to bicycles and that narrow roads and heavy traffic make cycling unsafe. As a result, bicycle lanes along roads are rare and bridges, flyovers and tunnels are out of bounds for cyclists.

  
This view of an activity that is rightly regarded as healthy, energy-efficient and non-polluting has filtered through to the transport sector, which has either banned or put restrictions on people with bicycles. Despite a recent Planning Department report concluding that cycling "is essentially a recreation sport", bicycles are even prohibited from 90 per cent of trails in country parks.

This has long frustrated our small but dedicated cycling community and made for limited training opportunities for sports cyclists, who now include a world champion in the men's 15km event, Wong Kam-po. The lack of provision for cyclists beyond the network of recreational bicycle tracks being created in the New Territories also means that any cyclist taking to the roads can fairly be described as foolhardy.

Police statistics back such a conclusion: 10 cyclists were killed last year and two last quarter. More than one-tenth of traffic accidents involve bicycles - even though cars, buses and trucks greatly outnumber them. The death and injury toll is less a matter of safety than of unwillingness by the government to acknowledge that cycling is a sensible and viable transport alternative.

If bicycle lanes were made obligatory on new roads, drivers educated about the rights of cyclists and train and ferry operators encouraged to carry bicycles, a cycling culture like that in Europe would evolve. Our roads would consequently be less congested, the air cleaner and the community healthier and happier.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZHODXMB0F.html

Friday, April 13, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Mending fences will take joint effort



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   No higher honour can be accorded the leader of a nation than to address the parliament of another country. Premier Wen Jiabao, given the honour by his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, as part of measures to foster better relations, did not disappoint yesterday, delivering a speech laden with symbolism, history and, above all else, the promise of co-operation.
There could have been no better message to Japan's lawmakers or its people. Only through working together can both countries prosper and grow, and history must be kept in mind so that mistakes of the past will not be made again.

  
But this is easier said than done. There is a strong nationalist current flowing through Japanese society that is portraying the nation's past in a glorified light. This angers Chinese who suffered at the hands of Japan's military during the years of occupation last century. Chinese do not believe that enough has been done by Japan's leaders to atone for the atrocities.

Mr Wen may be trying to usher relations back on track, but he is also a realist. Acknowledging past apologies, he said that more effort was needed. Later in the day, during his meeting with Emperor Akihito, he also took the opportunity to stress that facts about the past must continue to be passed down in a proper manner.

However, other than Japanese support for Taiwan and the fight for oil and gas beneath the East China Sea, Mr Wen's speech was highly conciliatory. There was no mention of leaders' visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, honouring Japan's war dead, one of the reasons ties have plunged to their lowest since diplomatic relations between the two countries were forged in 1972. Mr Abe's nationalist predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi, infuriated Chinese with visits there, and although the prime minister has also prayed there, he has judiciously stayed away since taking office.

Such diplomacy is, after all, at the heart of the efforts to repair the damage done by Mr Koizumi and to resolve differences. It was the reason for Mr Abe's visit to Beijing just weeks after becoming prime minister last October and for Mr Wen's reciprocal trip this week.

Both men well know the importance of the process. Working at odds, East Asia's foremost nations will deepen the suspicion and uncertainty that pervades the region. Together, though, they can reap the diplomatic and economic benefits that partnership offers.

The premier pointed to the nations' renowned mountains, Tai and Fuji, as being unshakeable and that despite the twists and turns of the countries' relations, such was also the case with the foundations of their friendship. Thousands of years of interaction had made this the case in the past and it would be in the future.

As promising as such gestures may be, much has to be done by both sides before fences can truly be said to be mended. Agreements signed by the leaders on Wednesday covered a host of issues ranging from defence, energy, the environment and technology to intellectual property rights and finance. While the accord is apparently not short of substance, it remains to be seen if both sides will put aside their differences and implement it faithfully.

As important as Mr Wen's speech was, it must only be seen as a first step along a path that will need every effort by both sides, at all levels, to construct. Mr Wen and Mr Abe have the will to make this happen. Now they must ensure that every effort is made to put in place the necessary conditions so that there can be as few missteps as possible.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZP3SONB0F.html

Monday, April 16, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
HK should promote diversity in education



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Our falling birth rate and ageing population threaten Hong Kong's development. One solution identified by the government is to attract more people to come and work - and perhaps to settle and raise families here. This is a worthy idea. But as newly arrived expatriates with children can attest, there is a flaw to such thinking in that the education system is not adequately geared for such an influx.
Company recruiters and diplomats are not short of anecdotes about people who decided against taking up job offers here because a school place could not be immediately found for their children. There are complaints that schools are not in favourable locations, the numbers of students in classrooms are too high and certain types of education are not adequately catered for.

  
Most international schools have long waiting lists because of demand from the expatriate community and a perception among some Chinese residents that they offer a better standard of education. Most local schools are not attuned to foreign students due to teaching primarily in Cantonese, while a small number that teach in English cater for only the best and brightest children.

Then there are foreign professionals who have not come on expatriate packages - even if they can get past the waiting lists, the high fees international schools demand make living and working here not worth their while. There are few other options available for such foreigners, even though they also have valuable contributions to make to Hong Kong's future.

As we report today, the government has finally been convinced of the problem by groups such as the American Chamber of Commerce, which it has commissioned to carry out a survey of placement problems at the top international schools. The chamber's president, Jack Maisano, and its chairman, Gary Clinton, have been among those warning authorities about the severity of the situation, particularly on Hong Kong Island.

Whatever the study's findings, there are several solutions. The falling birth rate provides the simplest short-term one: turning government schools that have been closed due to inadequate numbers over to their international counterparts. These may not always be in the best locations, but Hong Kong is a compact city and travelling times are not as wearisome as they may appear on a map.

The government's policy of giving land at either minimal or no cost to school foundations means there is substantial room for new campuses to be built. This may not necessarily be possible on Hong Kong Island, the favoured housing location for corporations' top expatriates. But they could certainly be constructed in other parts of the city with large populations of foreigners.

Longer-term, and less easily resolved, is the disconnect between local and international schools. The so-called "elite" local schools, presently reserved for the highest achieving students and with an English-language curriculum, are practically off limits to non-local students. How to increase their number and make them accessible to both local and foreign students alike is a matter that warrants intense investigation.

For foreign professionals with families, their children's education weighs heavily in their decision to come here. They are the people Hong Kong needs to attract for future sustainability. Coming from varying countries, cultures and backgrounds, they will sometimes need equally diverse education requirements. The government must ensure that these are dealt with in as flexible a way as possible.


http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZP6NRUG0F.html

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Social harmony can't be created by brute force



   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Officials in the prosperous mainland provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang are crowing about their success in preventing protests and riots. They claim to have substantially reduced the number that occurred last year and spoke with pride of their achievements at a national public security meeting held in Xian yesterday.
There is nothing sophisticated about their method of creating the social harmony that President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao are so eager for. All they needed was billions of yuan to toughen security.


This was used to provide surveillance equipment in as many places as possible and tens of thousands of extra police and guards. In effect, their solution to unrest is to monitor people more closely and whenever trouble breaks out, crush it with force. While in the eyes of the provincial officials this may be fulfilling the wishes of Mr Hu and Mr Wen, it is far from creating harmony. Rather, it is preventing people with legitimate grievances from voicing their concerns.

As the world has learned time and again over the centuries, bottling up a problem with force will eventually be a recipe for disaster. Revolutions evolve from such an approach, not stability.

This fear is the reason the central government is so eager to ensure that economic growth and social development go hand in hand. Its policies on this have been clear in the legislation that has been drafted and passed into law. The system, however, often fails when it comes to enforcement at the provincial level.

Landmark property ownership laws were approved by the National People's Congress last month, for example. Many of the tens of thousands of protests across the nation each year are the result of people being forced from land or homes that they consider to be theirs by corrupt officials - the very people Beijing expects to enact the law.

There is a need to deal effectively with the root causes of social unrest. If legal mechanisms to protect rights are ignored in favour of spying techniques and brute force, the result will be disharmony.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZ4RCIBK0F.html

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
US must accept need for tighter gun laws



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Americans' dogged attachment to guns claims 30,000 lives each year, but it is only eye-opening tragedies such as the massacre at a Virginia university that prompts widespread questioning of their easy availability. Again, as on each previous occasion, the solution is plain: restrict firearms to those who have a genuine need for them and ensure that anyone found with an illegal weapon is dealt with harshly by the law. It is also important, now that it has emerged that the killer is Korean, that there is no backlash in the US against Asian people. Cool heads and common sense must prevail.
A much stricter approach to gun laws has served Hong Kong and other parts of the world well. While no society can guarantee that an outrage such as that at Virginia Tech will not occur in its midst, it can put in place tough preventive measures. In Hong Kong's case, this involves making obtaining a gun difficult, stringently detailing what weapons can be sold and how they must be stored and imposing heavy penalties, including jail, on anyone found with an unlicensed firearm.


Australia learned the lesson of lax attention to gun ownership in 1996 when a gunman massacred 35 people at a tourist site in Port Arthur, Tasmania. More than 500,000 weapons were subsequently surrendered under stricter gun laws and the number of deaths in the nation from firearms has since sharply declined.

But enacting such laws is not so simple in the US, where the powerful gun lobby has widespread political support. Historically, guns have a special place in American hearts, being the basis for the frontier era of gun-slinging cowboys and pioneers who lived off the land. That relationship is enshrined legally in the second amendment to the US constitution, which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The US has embraced this right to the fullest and no nation has as many firearms in private hands.

With possession of guns so widely seen as a right, politicians are loath to do more than offer commiserations whenever they are confronted by people angry about yet another shooting. Occasionally, they are moved to partially tighten controls.

Time and again, such half measures have proved to be ineffective; a string of mass shootings, like that at Columbine High School in Colorado eight years ago by two students is ample proof. Once more, young lives have been lost at a place of learning, this time in the state of Virginia, where there are few restrictions on the buying of handguns and gun licensing requirements are weak.

With presidential elections 19 months away, 33 more lives lost to guns would not seem likely to make much difference. Yet the anger at this, the worst mass shooting in US history, warrants more from US leaders than sympathy to survivors and the relatives of victims while giving a nod and wink to the gun lobby.

US President George W. Bush speaks of the threat to the US from terrorists outside the nation, but the damage being done from within due to inadequate gun laws is tearing at America, making it unsafe for citizens and visitors. He and state leaders can greatly reduce the violence by making guns less freely available.

For inspiration, they need only look to Hong Kong, Australia or Britain, where access to guns is heavily restricted and penalties for illegal possession severe. Deaths from such weapons are consequently low in number. Action is urgently needed to prevent yet more pointless carnage.


http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZERGIBK0F.html

Thursday, April 19, 2007

OBSERVER
No one immune in 'High Noon' America


TOM PLATE
   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.
The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California in Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are citizens of High Noon America.


High Noon was a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolutions. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly - the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well but the gun part not so much.

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus of course on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed the Virginia Tech students was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 per cent irrelevant. So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the racial identity of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9mm handgun and a 22mm handgun.

Let's focus more on the issue of the guns before we ban Koreans from our campuses.

"Guns don't shoot people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra; but guns generally don't kill others without people pulling the triggers. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger.

The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if easily available guns were virtually impossible for the ordinary citizen to obtain.

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just happen to make better news stories for the media, so perhaps they seem common.

They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune.

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be on guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.

Last month I was robbed in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams which he pointed right at my head. Naturally, being anything but a James Bond type, I complied with all of his requests, rather quickly. Perhaps because of more rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

Oh, and the police told me the armed robber definitely was not Korean.

Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head. A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.

Tom Plate is a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy. Distributed by the UCLA Media Centre.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZFA018K0F.html

Monday, April 23, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Relieve doctors of the role of pharmacist


       

Next Story
           We all make honest mistakes and doctors, for all the training and care that they take, are no different. To err is human, after all. But honest mistakes rarely wash when it comes to our foremost priority in life, our health. The most stringent possible system has to therefore be put in place to reduce medical errors and ensure patient safety.

Authorities claim to have such measures in place when it comes to private doctors dispensing medication. The system is clearly inadequate in light of our story today about a three-year-old girl who was taken to a Tuen Mun doctor and given cough medicine that burned her throat; analysis by the hospital her worried parents had rushed her to revealed the syrup contained the disinfectant Isopropyl alcohol, which can cause death if swallowed in large enough quantities.

Hospital staff were quick to spot the mistake and the girl was sent home after treatment. A Health Department investigation is being carried out into how the mix-up occurred.

Medical authorities have declared the incident to be an isolated one and that we should not worry. Guidelines are in place, they reassure us, that protect patients by indicating that doctors should check the medicine that has been prepared from their dispensaries by assistants for patients before handing it to them.

This would be fine were it not for the incident being the latest in a string of similar ones in recent years. At least 31 children were given an antihistamine wrongly diluted with the same alcohol by a Tung Chung doctor little more than seven months ago and one, a six-year-old boy, ended up in hospital. In May 2005, 152 people with stomach ailments were given a mislabelled drug for diabetes by a Wong Tai Sin doctor and four later died, although whether because of the mistake was uncertain.

These three incidents clearly show that the present system in which private doctors maintain their own drug supplies and have staff dispense them is flawed. As in public and private hospitals and in many countries the world over, proper checks and balances should be put in place by giving the role of dispensing medication to unassociated, registered pharmacists.

This would not entirely eliminate the possibility of errors taking place; even trained pharmacists can make mistakes, just as doctors and anyone else in a position of trust can do. But by clearly delineating a doctors' work into that of diagnosing an ailment and prescribing the medication necessary for it and leaving the dispensing to a qualified pharmacist, the risk of a mistake is lessened.

The errors also highlight the fact that private doctors' clinics are subject to few external checks. While doctors are regulated by the Hong Kong Medical Council, it usually intervenes only after a complaint has been lodged. Doctors also have to undergo continuing education to update their medical knowledge, but no mechanisms exist to ensure that they and their staff adopt best practices and abide by the highest professional standards.

Public faith in our medical system remains high, but it is being eroded by such incidents. Although health-care reform is under consideration by authorities, urgent attention needs to be given to ensuring that the possibility of doctors dispensing the wrong medication is minimised.

Relieving doctors of the role of pharmacist is the simplest way of achieving this.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZEEZUTQ0F.html

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Correct approach to urban renewal



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   The Urban Renewal Authority has come in for some criticism for plans to redevelop parts of Hong Kong that residents do not want to relinquish for historical or sentimental reasons. But its most ambitious project yet - tearing down 5.3 hectares of a shabby district of Kwun Tong - would seem to be meeting little resistance.
Part of the reason for this is that the sort of heritage concerns which have arisen elsewhere are not present in the case of Kwun Tong. But the process adopted by the authority has also got the project off to a good start. There are lessons here the government could learn from as it considers the wider development of our city.


In Kwun Tong, from the rubble of the 24 housing blocks, industrial buildings, shops and a bus station will rise an up-scale development of apartments centred on a 70-storey building and glass-domed government complex. At least 30 per cent will be devoted to green space; there will be none of the "curtain effect" blocking air flow that other high-rise developments elsewhere in the city have been criticised for creating.

The project will cost HK$30 billion, with almost half going towards compensating residents. Officials, with justification, contend that it will revitalise a part of Hong Kong to which few people from outside Kwun Tong venture.

Authority projects differ in their circumstances and processes from the big government development plans that have caused controversy recently, such as those concerning the Star Ferry and Queen's piers, the new administrative complex at Tamar, and the West Kowloon arts hub. But it is still worth noting that the authority's plans for Kwung Tong involve a real sense of feeling the pulse of the community. Indeed, it has even decided to lower the plot ratio in response to public demands, a move that will make it harder to ensure the development is financially sustainable.


Three architectural firms were approached for ideas and the plan unveiled yesterday combined elements of each. After town planning officials look the project over, a nine-month public consultation period will begin. Objections and suggestions will be considered, compensation paid and work is expected to start in 2010.

Granted, that the scheme has been on drawing boards since 1998 means a careful planning process has been possible. Announced by the Land Development Corporation, it was passed to the authority in 2001 when the corporation was dissolved. While so protracted a scheme is not desirable from the perspective of developers, it is certainly so from the point of view of citizens. More broadly, Hong Kong should have a long-term development strategy that is well thought out and given due consideration by all stake-holders.

The Kwun Tong proposal is being handled sensibly. The plan has been released and is open for scrutiny and soon a reasonable amount of time will be permitted for residents to have their say.

It is important that the public makes the best use possible of the consultation process. If there are objections to the plans, this is the time to air them. The authority should then make sure that it listens to the community's response and adjusts the proposals where necessary. Suggestions should be handled in an open manner. This is the way to put in place a development of which we can be proud.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZFKVUTQ0F.html

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

OBSERVER
When change is clearly necessary


CHRIS YEUNG
   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   If it were not for a damning value-for-money Director of Audit investigation published last week, a government-funded research institute, which costs taxpayers HK$120 million annually, would have remained largely off the radar.
Aimed at enhancing Hong Kong's technological competitiveness, the Applied Science and Technology Research Institute Company (ASTRI) that was inaugurated in 2001 hit the headlines last Thursday for all the wrong reasons.


It spent more than HK$180,000 on fung shui advice for its office layout - just one of many cases of inappropriate spending and mismanagement uncovered by the Audit Commission. Other examples include overly generous pay for 18 staff, overspending on entertainment, and missing records of declaration of interest by senior executives.

The commission also found poor attendance by the board of directors. A non- government director was absent from all 21 meetings during the first two years of tenure. Permanent Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology Francis Ho Suen-wai, who is a board director, missed 10 meetings in a row.

Two ministers whose portfolios cover industry and technology - Financial Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen and Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong Wing-ping - have ordered  ASTRI to address the mismanagement.

The details of the problems may differ from similar investigations carried out by the commission into government-funded statutory bodies. But they have again highlighted the problem of a lack of government supervision over the operation of quasi-independent bodies. The ASTRI cases also raise questions about the chain of responsibility among government officials, the board of directors and senior executives.

More fundamental questions, however, could be asked about whether the research institute itself is providing value for money.

ASTRI was one of the initiatives of former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa to embrace innovation and technology after he took office in 1997. He said in his 1998 policy address that "innovation and technology are important drivers of economic growth".

Faced with the onset of a severe economic downturn precipitated by the Asian financial crisis, Mr Tung highlighted a range of proposals for Hong Kong's strategic development made by the now-disbanded Innovation and Technology Commission. They included the development of information technology, design and fashion, multimedia-based information and entertainment services, and health food, for example.


Now almost 10 years later, it is doubtful that Mr Tung's proactive approach has succeeded in raising the city's competitiveness in the global knowledge-based economy.

True, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has maintained similar lines on innovation and applied technology in his two policy addresses. Yet, he has focused more on the development of Hong Kong as an international financial hub. At an election forum during the chief executive election last month, Mr Tsang was confident that the development of financial services would generate enough growth and prosperity to feed the city's 7 million people.

His approach addresses the challenges from critics such as former secretary for security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, who has argued that Hong Kong needs to develop a more diversified economic structure to maintain growth.

Following the commission's report, it looks certain that senior ministers will overhaul ASTRI's management to avoid further political embarrassment. It can no longer operate in an opaque manner, without clearly accounting for how money is spent, and without adequate scrutiny.

If such problems are left unresolved, doubt and scepticism will increase about whether ASTRI actually serves to facilitate economic growth.

Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large.

chris.yeung@scmp.com



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZXR8TPV0F.html

Monday, April 30, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Tough action needed to avert economic crisis



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   State leaders are aware of the need to rein in an economy that is galloping out of control. But they have yet to admit publicly just how far it is has bolted from their grasp. There is a need for them to acknowledge that the mainland economy is overheating and to take the tough measures needed to cool growth. Otherwise, the mainland will continue to move worryingly towards a social and economic precipice.
The government's approach has been to take incremental steps, such as those announced by the central bank yesterday ordering lenders to increase their reserve ratio to 11 per cent from May 15, up from 10.5 per cent. This was the seventh such move in the past 11 months; another measure, increasing borrowing costs, has been tried three times in the past year.



These and other tightening measures are clearly not working, however, as the 11.1 per cent first-quarter growth rate announced earlier this month indicates. The figure was 0.7 percentage points higher than the growth rate for the previous three months. Nor are the steps bringing inflation to heel: the Consumer Price Index rose 3.3 per cent in March, 0.3 percentage points more than the government had expected and half a percentage point more than the year-end target.

It is not difficult to understand why such fundamentals are on the rise. The trade surplus in the first quarter almost doubled to US$46.4 billion, while new bank loans - 1.4 trillion yuan for the same period - amounted to nearly half of last year's total. People from all walks of life are borrowing money to invest in the soaring stock market and booming real estate sector. This is fuelling the mainland's demand for commodities and energy, straining national and international resources and putting pressure on the environment.

The consequences of the economic bubble bursting would be devastating. Students who are putting tuition fees and living expenses into the stock market would be financially ruined, a blow to the nation's future. The aged, their life savings gone, would become a bigger burden to the state. White-collar workers who lost everything in a property crash would join the welfare queues.

State leaders are well aware of the need to curb inflation, surging stock markets and wasteful investment. They have, over many months, been trying to gradually slow economic growth in way that does not prompt a downturn. It is a delicate balancing act.

The central government leadership, mindful of the 17th Communist Party Congress in the autumn, at which a reshuffle is likely, and the Beijing Olympics next year, has an understandable desire for stability, social harmony and continued economic growth. But the government is approaching the economy gingerly, tweaking rather than taking the forceful action that is needed to rein it in. This may prove to be insufficient for an economy that has the potential to spiral out of control. Liquidity has to be reined in and this can only be done through ordering banks to be more responsible when it comes to giving loans.

More stringent measures are needed to accompany those that have already been implemented. There is a need to further strengthen the regulatory regime and, in particular, to make sure that applications for loans and construction projects are more closely vetted. Most important of all is getting the message across to the public. A good start would be for officials to admit that the mainland is facing an emerging economic crisis that needs urgent decisive attention.


http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZYOXBU01F.html

day, May 1, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Model answer for HK is to forget rote learning


       

Next Story
           The government has accepted that Hong Kong needs to change its ways to adapt to the globalised world. Reforms of some of our key institutions are under way to foster the creativity essential for increasing our competitiveness. As worthy as such strategies and policies may be, however, they have to be accompanied by the mindset that is needed to make them work. This would appear lacking in some quarters when it comes to education.

As we have reported this week, some Form Five students doing an essay as part of the Chinese language test for the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination have expressed concerns over one of the topics, lemon tea. That was because an instructor at a tutorial centre had given out "model" essays to his students, including one on iced lemon tea.

The complainants wonder if students tutored at the centre had an unfair advantage. They want to take their concerns to higher authorities, including the Independent Commission Against Corruption, on the assumption that the tutor might have had inside knowledge of the exam questions.

But other students are concerned for a different set of reasons. The Hong Kong Examinations Authority takes a serious view of students' reciting model essays. These students are therefore concerned that anyone writing about lemon tea might have their performances erroneously marked down should they happen to have used expressions featured in that sample essay on iced lemon tea.

The exam last Friday was the first under a new format, introduced under education reforms, which seeks a creative rather than a rote-learning approach to essay writing. Instead of having to memorise 26 set texts, students are being graded on their comprehension, essay writing and oral presentations. The change in the mode of assessment is aimed at discouraging rote learning and memorisation and is in line with the education reforms' objective of casting aside outdated teaching and learning practices. This should produce better-rounded students who are innovative and have the ability to deal with change - attributes essential to tackling the complexities of an increasingly diverse world.

Ironically, the lemon tea essay incident reveals that old habits die hard. Not only do some teachers appear to have missed the message from the government that a new method of teaching has been implemented, but a number of students would also appear to want to stick with the ways of the past. The mindset must be changed.

Globalisation has meant that many of the services our city offers can be outsourced to parts of the world where labour costs are lower. Singapore and Japan are constantly trying to attract the international companies that have based themselves here. We need to innovate and evolve to ensure economic well-being and a better quality of life.

Achieving this will take people with creative and analytical skills who are able not just to look outside the box. They must be creative and able to analyse and have good personal communications skills. They have to be able to think outside the box.

The topic lemon tea is an invitation to students to think freely about one of the most popular drinks in Hong Kong. That a tutorial centre instructor found it necessary to develop a model essay about it for students who don't have the confidence to write a few hundred words of their own is alarming. The sooner such a practice is banished, the better.


http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZEMDQU01F.html

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
Macau must deal with casino boom wealth gap



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Police thought they were well prepared for yesterday's May Day protest in Macau. The security chief vowed there would be no repeat of last year's violent clashes with protesters. That his prediction was proved so wrong is evidence that while Macau's gambling wealth may have eclipsed that of Las Vegas, it has done nothing for social harmony and stability. The economic benefits of the casino boom have not filtered down to many Macau residents, while property prices and rents have outstripped their means. Social unrest came to a head yesterday with unprecedented calls from some for the resignation of Macau Chief Executive Edmund Ho Hau-wah.
It is less than two years since Mr Ho basked in the praise of President Hu Jintao , who held up Macau as a model of "one country, two systems". But the endorsement came with a caution and some advice. Despite Macau's fast-paced development, Mr Hu said, deep-rooted problems and conflict persisted. Mr Ho's government should be diligent, corruption-free and effective in providing quality services to the people. In other words, if Mr Ho did not address the causes of the social problems and ensure clean government, the administration could run into trouble. It took the recent arrest of former Macau minister Ao Man-long on charges of corruption and financial crimes to stir Mr Ho into public action.

  
Earlier this month the government announced a string of policies aimed at cooling the property market and boosting public housing. But it was too little, too late to address the social grievances. The economic basis for the discontent is easily illustrated. Per capita gross domestic product in the gambling enclave has risen about 60 per cent since 2003 and stood at 227,508 patacas last year, overtaking Hong Kong's HK$214,710. Meanwhile, the median monthly income of unskilled workers has grown only 23 per cent to 3,809 patacas, while the consumer price index has risen 13 per cent.

While younger Macau residents have been able to compete with imported labour for better-paying jobs in the casinos, older unskilled workers have found life harder. The gambling boom has created jobs but many people do not believe the official unemployment figure of less than 4 per cent. Rather, they blame the influx of imported labour, legal and illegal, for the loss of jobs and low wages. Their feelings of resentment and unfairness exploded at yesterday's rally.


It is unfortunate that there were scuffles and that the protests led to the discharge of firearms by police. Police say this was only to get the protesters' attention to prevent stampeding after someone had fallen. But while the desire to prevent injury is laudable, the use of firearms in such circumstances could prompt the stampede police say they were trying to prevent. Such an act is also inherently dangerous and risks aggravating a tense situation. Hong Kong police facing more provocative protests at the World Trade Organisation conference in 2005 did not find it necessary to use firearms.


The dramatic development of the gambling industry in Macau has clearly resulted in problems. But along with the related tourism industry, it is the only big card Macau has to play. It has been successful in kick-starting economic development almost overnight. Such rapid change can, however, be difficult to manage. There is a need for clean and transparent governance that strives to broaden participation in new economic and employment opportunities. Surging economic growth is not enough on its own. More must be done to narrow the gap between those who have benefited from Macau's casino-driven boom and those who have been left behind.


http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZTFOYV51F.html

Thursday, May 3, 2007

An ethical leap


GREG BARNS
   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     


While Australian companies are focusing on making profits from the burgeoning Chinese market, they are now being asked to consider how they might help alleviate poverty and enhance human rights when they do business there.
A report released in Australia this week by a group called the Business for Poverty Relief Alliance says, that while corporate Australia is supportive of and active in social investment, most companies have been "less than active in ensuring that poverty is addressed in their closest export markets", which include China.

The alliance, formed last year to work with poverty relief agency World Vision Australia, includes among its members, leaders from companies that are key players in the Chinese market, including insurance giant IAG and investment bank, Macquarie Bank.

Not surprisingly, the alliance's report argues that it makes good business sense for companies to help alleviate poverty and operate sustainably in developing-world markets like China.

Many of the alliance report's recommendations are sensible and uncontroversial. But there are some ideas which, if taken up, might give business a broader role in developing-world markets, like China.

For example, the report notes that Australian companies "should commit to contributing an appropriate proportion of their social investment to poverty relief initiatives, commensurate with the exposure of their operations to developing countries and indigenous communities".

In China, there are plenty of opportunities to put this recommendation into action, particularly in rural areas.

As Sandra Polaski, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Li Shantong and He Jianwu, from China's State Council Development Research Centre, have noted in a study published recently: "Despite unprecedented progress in reducing the most severe poverty, about 70 per cent of the population still survives on very low incomes, defined at the World Bank standard of US$2 per day."

If the Australia-China free-trade agreement becomes a reality over the next few years, this will provide an unprecedented opportunity for Australian agri-businesses not only to employ workers under decent conditions, but also to help build badly needed social infrastructure such as health centres, water systems and even educational facilities.

And when Australian mining giants like BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto look at exploiting the untapped potential of western China's vast mineral reserves, they also have an unrivalled chance to help radically improve the lives of millions of people who live in some of the remotest and toughest conditions on Earth.

One recommendation in the alliance report may prove problematic for Australian companies operating in a political environment such as China.

Business, the report urges, should become involved in "policy dialogue and advocacy", and work with governments to "achieve efficient public administration and service delivery, fair and transparent regulations, respect for human rights and the elimination of bribery and corruption". In other words, business should become more like NGOs when it comes to standing up to government policies inconsistent with human rights and transparency. In the context of China, there would not be a day that goes by when Australian and other foreign companies are not confronted with some aspect of life which creates an ethical dilemma.

What is, for example, a construction company operating in China to do when it works alongside corrupt local officials, or where people are forcibly evicted from their homes and land without adequate compensation and against their will, so a new business park or apartment block can be built?

Is it wise for that company to take a strong public stance against such practices?

There is no easy answer, although one of the report's suggestions is for business to join with advocacy groups and NGOs to help bring cultural change in an ethically challenging environment. If business executives feel uncomfortable about protesting publicly in developing countries like China, then there is no reason why they shouldn't push the Australian government to give more in international aid, according to the alliance report.

In fact, notes the report, it is in business' interest for Australia to lift the amount of aid it provides to poorer countries.

Simon McKeon of Macquarie Bank, who helped to commission the alliance report, noted this week that investment by "government and business in developing robust communities in our region is a wise long-term investment".

What, then, should Australian businesses be telling their government about aid programmes in China?

This year, Australia has committed A$41 million (HK$266 million) in foreign aid to China. And in 2005, both countries signed a five-year development co-operation programme designed to assist the Chinese in key areas such as water, health care and governance.

These initiatives need to be augmented by private-sector schemes, particularly in China's rural areas.

In other words, Australian businesses can work alongside government aid programmes to help at least make a small dent in alleviating the absolute poverty that afflicts about 100 million Chinese today.

Greg Barns is a political commentator in Australia and a former Australian government adviser


http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZ6NA5W51F.html

Friday, May 4, 2007

OBSERVER
Pier pressure and the route to harmony


PAUL ZIMMERMAN
   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Let me start by congratulating the community for its civic spirit, for its perseverance in the face of many obstacles, and for making sure that there is now a commitment to preserve both the Star Ferry Clock Tower and Queen's Pier. If not for the efforts and hard work of Hongkongers, these historic landmarks would have vanished forever.
The decision to demolish and then rebuild Queen's Pier is one of cost - HK$50 million is the price. Working around the structure, while leaving it intact, would be more complicated and significantly more expensive - upwards of HK$130 million.


Therefore, in financial terms - and however much we object to even a temporary removal of the pier - we could agree that its careful storage and reassembly was financially reasonable.

The value of Queen's Pier is not so much in the structure but in the setting and the place. It is a landmark of Hong Kong's history. The centrepoint of the pier lines up with the centrepoint of the main entrance to City Hall, forming the north and south edges of Edinburgh Place. Together, these sites have been the venue for arrivals of dignitaries and other grand events.

In line with the "Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China", all efforts must be made to ensure Queen's Pier is reassembled in its original location. To do so will require: changing the plan of P2 - a six-lane highway from the Airport Express station past the Convention and Exhibition Centre to join existing roads - and building a provision for the future MTR tunnel.

Part of the land reserved for the P2 highway, about 40 metres by 20 metres, is taken up by Queen's Pier. The solution is to move the road north by 20 metres or to reduce its width to 20 metres, which is sufficient for a dual carriageway. This can be achieved by scrapping the turning pockets and central reserve. This will reduce the P2 highway's capacity slightly, but that may not be a problem before completion of all the planned Central developments.

At some future stage, the MTR Corporation will need to build a tunnel to increase the frequency of the Airport Express railway in line with the growing number of tourists, visitors and residents. The tunnel is also needed for an extension of the Tung Chung line to Fortress Hill, to alleviate the growing congestion on the harbour crossing and existing island line.

The alignment of the MTR tunnel is close to where Queen's Pier is today, and various technical constraints rule out the possibility of changing its position. Therefore, to avoid taking down the pier and rebuild it twice in the original position, we could either wait a long time, or design and build a provision - a skeleton tunnel - for the MTR first.

Building such a tunnel provision now would be wise for many reasons. The new MTR lines, with stops along the harbourfront at Tamar and the convention centre, would reduce traffic demand on the P2 highway. This means the road could be smaller. In turn, it would make it easier to maintain Queen's Pier in situ and improve the harbourfront.

More importantly, ripping open the new Central waterfront and the P2 highway, to build the MTR tunnel later, would cause major disruption and would add between HK$1 billion and HK$2 billion to the cost.

Plans for Central Reclamation Phase III, and related works, date back to the metropolitan proposal developed in the 1980s. There have been several changes to take in the reduction in reclamation, yet the road plans have hardly altered. What we have learned is the need for flexibility and continuous improvement.

In many ways, it's like the father who builds a house or renovates a flat. His refusal to accept input from his wife and children will result in a dysfunctional home. And refusing to adjust plans based on new information will result in a home that simply does not work for the family.

Paul Zimmerman is convenor of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZAOTYV51F.html

Monday, May 7, 2007

EDITORIAL/LEADER
HK must not drag its feet on waste control



  
Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Rubbish disposal is a headache for cities the world over, but it is more so in Hong Kong, where space is limited and society wasteful. With the remaining lifespan of our rubbish tips being less than 10 years, enacting an environmentally sustainable waste management programme should be a matter of urgency for the government - yet it is dragging its feet.
As we report today, a feasibility study on a user-pays method of rubbish collection to reduce household waste will be extended to the end of this year after an insufficient number of public housing residents participated. The government has, sensibly, decided to speed up this study. But a public consultation process will follow after which, presumably, a charging mechanism will be developed and several years from now, a variation of the scheme implemented through legislation.


Such a time-consuming approach should not be the case for an administration that has been working for more than a decade on finding solutions to our garbage problem. Experts abound in sections of the administration such as the Environmental Protection Department and a host of studies has been carried out and reports produced, all to little avail.

The world over, cities have enacted strategies based on reducing waste through recycling, lessening the amount of material used to package goods and implementing a user-pays system of waste collection. Many have built hi-tech incinerators that cause little or no pollution and substantially cut whatever waste remains.

All options have been contemplated by our government. Incinerators were last discussed in 1998 and have seemingly been shelved; hundreds of thousands of recycling bins have been placed throughout Hong Kong and pilot programmes launched at various housing estates, but the voluntary nature has had little impact on overall garbage levels. Although a user-pays scheme has been implemented for firms dumping material at landfills, the method is still at a rudimentary feasibility study stage for households.

Hong Kong faces a serious waste-disposal problem and in such circumstances there is little room for argument and debate. Our circumstances may differ from other cities but, ultimately, the choices will be similar, if not the same.

Making those who produce more waste than others pay more is an obvious step; the principle has always applied to electricity, water, long-distance telephone calls and other such services in our lives. Charging by volume will make people less wasteful and may help make us more conscious of the need to recycle by separating glass, plastics and paper. The community will consequently put pressure on companies producing goods to be less wasteful with their packaging.

Putting a government charge on rubbish collection, a service that attracts no levy, will not be popular. The government is, rightly, sensitive to the need to gauge public opinion when implementing such policies. When it comes to waste collection, there is certainly a need to get whatever scheme is adopted right. A fair system of charging, the size of garbage bags, what to do with recyclable material - these all need to be thought through carefully. That opportunity will be given by the extension of the feasibility study. But once that has been completed, there should be no further delay. It is clear what must be done and all that will then be needed is for the details to be quickly decided upon and the scheme enacted.

As difficult as the charge will be to swallow, it is necessary to prolong the life of our landfills and, in consequence, reduce the impact of rubbish on our environment.



http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZ5CNPPD1F.html

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

OBSERVER
Obstinacy on reform sells the public short


FRANK CHING
   
Prev. Story | Next Story



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   What do Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and George W. Bush have in common? Our chief executive and the US president both face demands for a timetable. Hong Kong's pan-democratic camp wants a timetable for universal suffrage while Democrats in the United States want a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Neither are likely to get their wish.
The single-minded approach of Hong Kong's democrats was clearly seen in Mr Tsang's question-and-answer session in the Legislative Council on Thursday. They focused exclusively on universal suffrage in 2012, save for one question on food safety.

  
Before 2004, the democrats insisted on full democracy in 2007-2008, the earliest date allowable under the Basic Law. As Beijing has ruled this out, they are adamant that universal suffrage be applied no later than 2012, now the earliest possible date.

This all-or-nothing approach is what was adopted in 2005, when Mr Tsang presented a reform package that, while not fully democratic, would have been a step forward. However, the democrats flexed their muscles and vetoed it, insisting that no progress was better than what was proposed.

Now they have made a proposal, parts of which are strikingly similar to the one they rejected. But Hong Kong has already lost two years and will end up losing seven unless the democrats and Mr Tsang can agree on some reforms for next year's elections.

One member of the democratic camp, legislator Albert Cheng King-hon, has openly acknowledged that what the democrats did in 2005 was a mistake. In an article headlined "Missed opportunity" he wrote: "Under pressure from the pan-democratic camp, I did not have the political courage to vote for the government's reform package in 2005, despite my support for it. I regret having given up the chance of propelling Hong Kong towards full democracy." Mr Tsang has, in turn, shown a degree of obstinacy, insisting that since the democrats rejected his proposal, there will be no reforms whatsoever before 2012.

While he is understandably miffed at having his proposals turned down after obtaining Beijing's approval, he should re-evaluate the situation now since at least one member of the democratic camp has publicly acknowledged his mistake.

Otherwise, he will appear petty-minded. Mr Tsang should remember he is leader of all 7 million people in Hong Kong and they should not have their expectations of universal suffrage dashed because he continues to hold a grudge against the democrats.

Mr Tsang knows the public supported his 2005 proposals. Now he has won a new term, he owes it to the people to do everything possible to institute whatever reforms are still possible next year.

The 2005 reforms were important not just in themselves but also because they would have satisfied the Basic Law's requirement that progress towards universal suffrage be gradual and orderly. By not making any reform whatsoever in 2007-2008, the logical conclusion is that there will be no progress for a further four or five years.

That is why it is vital that the democratic camp and the chief executive agree on some degree of reform in the Legco election next year. While there can be no guarantee of universal suffrage in 2012, the possibility will be eliminated if there is no progress in 2008.

But this doesn't have to be the case. After all, it would be relatively simple to reform some of the functional constituency elections. The democrats must surely recognise that would be a step in the right direction. And the chief executive, by supporting reform in 2008, would gain credibility as someone who was serious about working to resolve the issue of constitutional reform.

Mr Tsang and the democrats should realise that a lack of progress in 2008 will mean another lost opportunity. Even small changes would be better than none.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator.

frank.ching@scmp.com


http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZAGQPPD1F.html