I want to share my thoughts on the article "A dose of socialism would be good for Hong Kong's health" (Young Post, June 19). While I agree that people have to be saved from the monopoly of big corporations, I think there are other solutions. Practising socialism could ruin Hong Kong's reputation as a free market.
The writer's desire to improve people's general welfare is totally understandable. But suggesting the government split up large businesses is a little extreme.
There's a big difference between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism is about new ideas while socialism is about government control to ensure a fair and just society. I believe there is a huge buffer zone between capitalism and socialism in Hong Kong. I think subtle government action - like regulation - is much better than limiting the growth of well-established corporations.
I agree that it is very important to prevent big businesses from having an adverse impact on people's living conditions. But the methods we use should be given careful thought.
One dose of socialism could be deadly for Hong Kong.
Hui Hing-yi, St Paul's School (Lam Tin)
From the Editor
Thank you for your letter, Hing-yi. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said there is a huge buffer zone between capitalism and socialism. Not that I think everything should be run by the government, but it seems that whenever someone suggests we change something to help people, the idea of a chaotic market is raised - like some evil ghost that we need to please. This philosophy is about "let the market decide". But what is this philosophy really?
Do we want the markets to decide if a hungry child is fed? Do we want the markets to decide who gets electricity, clean water, police protection, judicial help or even a postal service? I think the answer would be a definite "no". We should not let the market dictate our social policies.