Li Ka-shing is a patriot and a philanthropist
As we read Michael Chugani's article criticising the charitable giving of successful Hong Kong businessmen ('Charity begins at home: philanthropist or patriot?' November 18), we could not help but wonder if Mr Chugani had ever looked into the eyes of an impoverished child who, for the first time, was being offered the gift of learning.
We wondered if he had ever felt the sudden hope of a promising secondary student who without the means to attend college on her own learns that her tuition - and the tuition of thousands like her - has been paid, and that she will be able to earn a four-year degree from a prestigious university.
We wondered if Mr Chugani had ever held the hand of a terminally ill cancer patient, so poor that he was unable to afford even the most basic health care, while doctors alleviated his insufferable pain and provided critical therapy so he could continue to love and live with his family in a remote village.
Had Mr Chugani, we wondered, ever walked with an impoverished elderly couple, as they left their dusty fields and journeyed to a modern hospital to have their eye-sight restored and their hope renewed, all free of charge - as even the most nominal fee would have been cost- prohibitive?
All of these experiences came to mind as we tried to understand what would motivate such mean-spirited criticism, particularly directed towards Li Ka-shing, the philanthropist who has made these opportunities and millions just like them possible in the lives of people throughout the world.
Mr Chugani appears to be attempting to make the case that Mr Li's $100 million donation to support the 2008 Olympics is a self-serving gesture being made to distinguish himself as a patriot with Beijing - that somehow Mr Li should be questioned for taking pride in the Olympic activities coming to China, and for supporting our amateur athletes as they pursue their dreams and bring honour and aspiration to our nation.
Analytically and emotionally, his case falls apart - particularly for those of us who have been on the frontlines in Mr Li's global philanthropic endeavours. Supporting the 2008 Olympics and the athletes from all nations who will perform in Beijing by building them a swimming centre, is a noble activity in its own right. However, when that single gift is put in the context of the more than $5 billion that Mr Li has provided to worthy causes around the world, it becomes unassailable - to all but perhaps the most cynical journalist.
It appears, however, that Mr. Chugani was not interested in the facts. To describe the hospitals and universities, the research centres and elderly homes, the children's programmes and medical clinics, the relief organisations and orchestras, the dance troupes and cultural events, the hunger eradication and refugee assistance initiatives - all those that operate because of Mr Li and his foundation - would have been to undermine his thesis, that Hong Kong businessmen are really only looking out for themselves. To recite the facts would have been to make it clear that in most cases - certainly in Mr Li's - being a patriot does not exclude one from being a philanthropist. The truth is that most often the two go hand-in-hand.
DR KATHERINE LO, manager, Li Ka-shing Foundation
DR FRIEDA LAW, consultant, Shantou University Medical College
Canopy vs Dome
I refer to the letter from R. E. J. Bunker (November 26) in which he compares the failed London Dome to the proposed development of West Kowloon cultural district.
Mr Bunker misses two vital elements in his dismissal of the Hong Kong project. It is not located in the outskirts of the east end of London. And Hong Kong people will take this development to their hearts.
Whereas Londoners had no interest in travelling across the metropolis on wet miserable days on unreliable transport, Hong Kong people will flock to this stunning vision that will show this city to the world as truly international and inspirational.
MARK PEAKER, Chung Hom Kok
Alternative energy ban
Why is the government doing so little to promote alternative energy?
The column, 'Here comes the sun' (November 24), by Edith Terry, describes the efforts of concerned students to develop solar-powered vehicles, but she also reveals that 'Hong Kong's two power utilities prohibit use of alternative electricity sources except for emergencies'.
Is this a legal fact, and if so, why was it allowed in the companies' franchise and profit scheme? Has the government connived with the companies to cripple or kill solar energy?
Hong Kong is hot and sunny most of the year and it could readily benefit by encouraging the use of solar power, both for electricity production and heating water. The roofs and sides of our buildings are perfect for heating panels and they should be thus used.
In Israel, almost every home has a solar water-heating panel on the roof and this enables the country to save millions on imported fuel, as well as keeping the air free of emissions from burned coal.
Unfortunately, our civil servants are more concerned about protecting the profits of foreign oil companies and investors in our power companies, or they would have provided every government building with solar panels for power and heating. When will our architects begin designing and promoting such facilities and help us to have cleaner air and lower heating bills?
J. GARNER, Kowloon
Pollution's Olympic fix
It is the joint responsibility of the mainland and Hong Kong to fix the problem of pollution rather than explain it away. While Hong Kong's resolve is not in doubt, the central government's priorities are many.
One possible way of getting its attention is by linking our blue skies with the 2008 Olympics. Hong Kong will be a key access point for the Olympics as 'Asia's World City'. If we have a darkened sky and raspy populace it will not bode well for the image of Olympian success - something that is clearly the focus for Beijing officials.
DHRUV SHRIKENT, Mid-Levels
Most humane war
Far from 'slay and spray', the conduct of the Iraq war - seeking to focus on the combatants while minimising civilian casualties - is unprecedented and, dare I say, the most 'humane' in history ('Is the US more secure?', November 24). It is a far cry from the terrorists' tactic of beheading even non-combatants who want to help build a new Iraq.
With respect to Nicaragua, Anastasio Somoza was certainly a dictator. Daniel Ortega was no better. He also nationalised the economy and received large subsidies from Cuba and the USSR. Because of the havoc his policies created and under international pressure, he agreed to elections. He assumed that support from the American left and the fear he sought to instil in those who disagreed with him would ensure his re-election. He was wrong.
By making this comparison, John Bruce validates the contention that the left in the US grants all who are left of centre a pass because of the importance of their 'cause'. More often than not that cause is socialism.
The world's largest democracy is, in fact, India, not the US. Nevertheless, it is clear that Mr Bruce will always seek to demonise the US for (dare I say it) supporting freedom. The leader 'Fresh steps taken on the road to a new Iraq' (November 24) says tangible progress is being made. I ask again: what issue does the left have with 30 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq being on the path to real freedom and democracy?
GARRY HUNT, Mid-Levels
Superior craftsmen
I sympathise with Jeffry Kuperus's inconveniences on flights between Europe and Hong Kong (November 27), but disagree with his unjust assessment of Asian workers' skills and dedication (in Xiamen). In my 35 years of being served by Hong Kong craftsmen and, in between, by those in Bangkok, besides the 65 years by Japanese, I consider them superior. I make this judgment as one who had three years as an apprentice in woodwork and ironwork in my youth.
RUDOLF VOLL, Tsim Sha Tsui
