Buffalo Bill
23rd June 2009, 12:35 PM
Some interesting responses....
Jun 22, 2009
South China Morning Post
We are Mui Wo residents who wish to dissociate ourselves from the
shrill, paranoid rhetoric over the relocation of the drug-rehabilitation
school.
The centre's opponents say the facility will hurt tourism. Which
tourists are they talking about? As everyone knows, Mui Wo is the
preferred destination for the lowest bottom-feeder budget tourism: that
is, swarms of Hong Kong teenagers who crowd into cheap holiday flats,
have noisy parties all night and toss used barbecue forks into the
nearest streams. Some of them take drugs, as anyone taking a morning
stroll in Silvermine Beach can attest to, given the number of syringes
left there.
If local leaders truly wish to keep drugs out of Mui Wo, the best
solution is to close the filthy holiday homes, rather than start such a
school. In the unlikely event they ever develop the foresight to promote
a higher class of tourism, a school for reformed addicts tucked in a
back corner is the last thing that would repel visitors. More likely
such visitors would be appalled by the mountains of rubbish and
construction detritus that blight most of the villages, by the cars
driving illegally and dangerously on footpaths, and the trucks, many
owned by our leaders, parked along a potentially picturesque waterfront.
Many at the public forum were in hysterics over the drug-rehabilitation
centre being a bad influence on their children. What about the Jockey
Club centre, where men sit around blocking the pavements, chain-smoking
and gambling away their wages and family savings? Where is the talk of
the gambling centre harming tourism and children?
As for the new-found enthusiasm to re-establish a regular school on the
site, remember that the previous school was unfortunately shut down
because no one supported it. Non-Chinese parents send their children to
international schools, and Chinese parents mostly sent their kids to
"better" schools in the city. There is nothing to suggest this situation
would suddenly reverse itself with a new public school. Mui Wo leaders
should clean up their act and environment before hypocritically and
histrionically shouting about a facility that actually does some good
for the city's entire community.
D. Nicolas and M. Tsoi, Lantau
It is very easy for the government to accuse Mui Wo residents of failing
to act in the public interest, and sparking comments such as those from
Jeff Bell (Talkback, June 17), when it knows full well that it bears
complete responsibility for the drug-rehab-school debacle.
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has urged Mui Wo residents to
accept the plan, but seems to be forgetting a few salient points. Four
other bona fide applications by local schools have been submitted over
the past three years, with barely a reply from the Education Bureau. It
is strange they haven't been allowed their say.
The government plans to spend almost HK$300 million upgrading Mui Wo
into a tourist destination in its own right. Perhaps Mr Tsang can point
to similar schemes where upgrading a village into a tourist destination
involves placing a rehab centre in the middle of it?
A government report's recommended development strategy targets the Mui
Wo population to reach 17,000 by 2016. If the school site is taken away
now, it will be years before a new school is provided, and certainly not
in as good a location.
Mr Tsang's interest in the centre seems to blow hot and cold. After
hearing of its problems last year, he promised a visit to the existing
premises. An invitation was duly sent out by the college, but since then
he has been too busy to take them up on it. But that's OK, because he
mentioned it in his speech at the Foreign Correspondents' Club to make
up for not going.
It's also good to see the Democratic Party jumping on the bandwagon and
unilaterally deciding what's best for Mui Wo. Very democratic.
The Heung Yee Kuk premises are an ideal location for a school. They are
totally unsuitable premises for a drug-rehab centre, which needs to be
given special consideration in terms of location, facilities, expert
care, after-care and so on. If the correct amount of research by a
qualified body had been appointed to look into this when the college
first gave notice that its existing premises were inadequate, this whole
fiasco would have been averted.
Chris Meecham, Lantau
Jun 22, 2009
South China Morning Post
We are Mui Wo residents who wish to dissociate ourselves from the
shrill, paranoid rhetoric over the relocation of the drug-rehabilitation
school.
The centre's opponents say the facility will hurt tourism. Which
tourists are they talking about? As everyone knows, Mui Wo is the
preferred destination for the lowest bottom-feeder budget tourism: that
is, swarms of Hong Kong teenagers who crowd into cheap holiday flats,
have noisy parties all night and toss used barbecue forks into the
nearest streams. Some of them take drugs, as anyone taking a morning
stroll in Silvermine Beach can attest to, given the number of syringes
left there.
If local leaders truly wish to keep drugs out of Mui Wo, the best
solution is to close the filthy holiday homes, rather than start such a
school. In the unlikely event they ever develop the foresight to promote
a higher class of tourism, a school for reformed addicts tucked in a
back corner is the last thing that would repel visitors. More likely
such visitors would be appalled by the mountains of rubbish and
construction detritus that blight most of the villages, by the cars
driving illegally and dangerously on footpaths, and the trucks, many
owned by our leaders, parked along a potentially picturesque waterfront.
Many at the public forum were in hysterics over the drug-rehabilitation
centre being a bad influence on their children. What about the Jockey
Club centre, where men sit around blocking the pavements, chain-smoking
and gambling away their wages and family savings? Where is the talk of
the gambling centre harming tourism and children?
As for the new-found enthusiasm to re-establish a regular school on the
site, remember that the previous school was unfortunately shut down
because no one supported it. Non-Chinese parents send their children to
international schools, and Chinese parents mostly sent their kids to
"better" schools in the city. There is nothing to suggest this situation
would suddenly reverse itself with a new public school. Mui Wo leaders
should clean up their act and environment before hypocritically and
histrionically shouting about a facility that actually does some good
for the city's entire community.
D. Nicolas and M. Tsoi, Lantau
It is very easy for the government to accuse Mui Wo residents of failing
to act in the public interest, and sparking comments such as those from
Jeff Bell (Talkback, June 17), when it knows full well that it bears
complete responsibility for the drug-rehab-school debacle.
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has urged Mui Wo residents to
accept the plan, but seems to be forgetting a few salient points. Four
other bona fide applications by local schools have been submitted over
the past three years, with barely a reply from the Education Bureau. It
is strange they haven't been allowed their say.
The government plans to spend almost HK$300 million upgrading Mui Wo
into a tourist destination in its own right. Perhaps Mr Tsang can point
to similar schemes where upgrading a village into a tourist destination
involves placing a rehab centre in the middle of it?
A government report's recommended development strategy targets the Mui
Wo population to reach 17,000 by 2016. If the school site is taken away
now, it will be years before a new school is provided, and certainly not
in as good a location.
Mr Tsang's interest in the centre seems to blow hot and cold. After
hearing of its problems last year, he promised a visit to the existing
premises. An invitation was duly sent out by the college, but since then
he has been too busy to take them up on it. But that's OK, because he
mentioned it in his speech at the Foreign Correspondents' Club to make
up for not going.
It's also good to see the Democratic Party jumping on the bandwagon and
unilaterally deciding what's best for Mui Wo. Very democratic.
The Heung Yee Kuk premises are an ideal location for a school. They are
totally unsuitable premises for a drug-rehab centre, which needs to be
given special consideration in terms of location, facilities, expert
care, after-care and so on. If the correct amount of research by a
qualified body had been appointed to look into this when the college
first gave notice that its existing premises were inadequate, this whole
fiasco would have been averted.
Chris Meecham, Lantau