I read with great interest Alan Lung’s article on the Hong Kong Government’s push towards a knowledge-based economy. It is inevitable that this process of change has to happen as we move into the new millennium as rapid globalisation creates information exchanges as the world has never known before.

In the process of chasing talent to meet market demands and increasing productivity, many mistakes have been made through wrong placements and job savings. Staff have been placed in positions where their contributions are significantly less than their ability, due to an inappropriate job match or not identifying the right training needs. This lends support to Peter Drucker’s clarification of a knowledge worker – one whose achievement lies in doing the right things through his expertise rather than just doing things right. It is essential, therefore, to review the strengths of existing human capital to identify the expertise and match it with the right job so as to maximise individual job satisfaction and improved overall performance.

I believe that it is essential to take a breather from time to time to evaluate the abilities of individuals and leverage off these assessments to plan the steps forward. In order to maintain Hong Kong’s competitiveness, it is essential to get the best information on our pool of human talent available and work on deployment in the right places. By scientific profiling of individuals, jobs and opportunities, we can develop the edge to stay ahead in a globalised marketplace.

I agree with Mr Lung that too often, managers take the easy solution to cut cost by cutting staff for improved returns. A smarter solution is to enhance performance through greater productivity. This will continue Hong Kong’s competitiveness through growth rather than justify our future existence by shrinkage.

K K Lim
Director
Profiles of Hong Kong Ltd.

As a wine lover, I do like this idea, but also being realistic, I very much doubt the government will follow the advice, as it will reduce the immediate tax revenue (at least for the short term). May I instead suggest that the tax be changed to a fixed amount per quantity as it has been done with success in some European countries in the past. The government could simply divide the present annual tax with the number of bottles being imported and -- if they do want to support the "hub" idea -- they could reduce that fixed amount based on assumptions that sales will increase and thus accelerate that increase.

That would support sales of better wines, which in turn would help the middle range of buyers to obtain decent wine for their money and thus increase the appreciation. This in turn would increase interest, lift consumption, etc., and serve the purpose, and still maintain a win-win situation for all. It would also make under-invoicing unnecessary.

May I also take this opportunity to advise the government to crack down on the unreasonable practices of duty-free sales where duty is substituted with extremely high profits, which in turn is used to multiply the number of outlets. Somehow the "free competition" doesn't really work in duty-free areas. One -- or a few -- shops with reasonable prices of wine would also help to increase the interest and not only let people see wine as a luxury item where quality is equal to price.

Rene Hoeg
Sai Kung

In one of our recent committee meetings, there was a discussion on the agenda and items of interest for future get-togethers. Admittedly, most of us know the primary export markets quite well and like it or not, pay attention to its political and monetary developments due to its severe impact on our livelihood. Why is it then that we are having trouble finding topics which will and can attract a lot of members?

As one fellow member pointed out, perhaps with the make-up of primarily small- and medium-sized trading companies as the core of Chamber membership, members are not attracted to the more generalised topics offered. As another member pointed out, he would find a lot more interest in subjects and get-togethers which can help him potentially generate more business.

In this regard, perhaps more targeted organisations and companies could be a focus of the committee. For example, McDonalds and their associate Simon Marketing could be invited to talk about their recent handling of child labour problems at their sub-contractor. Such a topic should be of interest to toy, premium and plush trading/manufacturing members of the committee or Chamber.

The buying offices of major U.S. chain stores like Wal-Mart and K-mart could also be invited to talk about their buying needs, e-commerce strategies and future trends. These talks will certainly interest those members who are not doing business with the companies and will also allow the buyers of the chain stores to make more contacts in their areas of interest. After all, with most manufacturing being done in the mainland and the fact that China is such a big country, it is not always possible for the big chain store buyers to reach the manufacturers directly. The possibilities in this area are enormous and I would urge the Chamber to give it some thought.

Douglas Van
Director
Kelly International Corporation