£
1
THOSE NOT IN FAVOUR, AND THEIR REASONS:
SING TAO JIH PAO (June 5), in its initial report on the proposal,
said that one million secondary and primary students would suffer inconvenience.
Its report quoted headmasters and teachers.
MING PAO (June 9) said the financial sector was worried that international
trade in gold and silver, foreign exchange and commodities would be seriously
affected.
WAH KIU MAN PO (June 10) quoted a series of opponents of the
proposal. A spokesman for the Civic Association said that by advancing the clock
by one hour we were already "breaking the rhythm of nature" and that it was
even more unnecessary for the public, specially young children, to get up so early
to go to school or work in the dark. A committee member of the Tsimshatsui
Kaifong Association suggested advancing the clock only half an hour ahead of
Standard Time. Urban Councillor Mr. Peter Chan Chi-kwan said that only those
with a lot of leisure time could enjoy the sunlight after office hours; the great
majority of people could not afford to make full use of the sunlight after a
hard day's work. However, an unnamed labour adviser said he believed the proposal
would have no adverse effect on the working class.
MR. CHOI PAK-LAI, described as an expert on the Lunar Calendar,
was widely reported on June 15 on his view that the proposal would mean Hong
Kong would be using one Lunar Calender while another was in use by Mainland
China and Taiwan.
MR. YUE SHU-SUN, described as an expert in philosophy, was reported
in the EXPRESS on June 16 to be opposed to the proposal since Hong Kong
would isolate itself from other countries by adopting a separate time system.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.