Please DO NOT submit more than 2000 words (excluding bibliography)

I want a logical, reasonable answer to the following point of view:

Explain, MUST with support of academic/professional references and
experience of other common law jurisdictions (AT LEAST ONE), although
the current standard of care is LOW required of director in ***HONG
KONG***, the law IS NOT DEFECTIVE IN ***HONG KONG***.

You may refer to:

Report of the Standing Committe on Company Law Reform on the
Recommendations of a Consultancy Report of the Review of the Hong Kong
Company Ordinance (February 2000) para.6.61
(http://www.info.gov.hk/cr/new/index.htm)

---

Clarification of Question by r1ckycheung-ga on 05 Apr 2005 15:19 PDT

Let me make some clarifications, it would be not difficult to answer I think:

You may answer in point form as well as long as it is
clearly-understandable. Prefer plain language.

First, I require a brief description of the current requirements of
being a director in Hong Kong. I know the standard is VERY LOW for
private companies, but higher for public listed companies. I need
references to the information used (such as URLs, book names,
journals, newspaper articles etc). You must make some comparisons with
the requirements with the Hong Kong one with other common law
jurisdictions such as Australia, UK, US etc.

Second, I require information  (NO NEED TO BE VERY DETAILED OR
TECHNICAL) in support of the saying the law concerning current
standard of care required of directors is not defective. I suspect it
may be related to sth like "corporate goverance" and some case laws.

Also, some general concerns by investors / businessmen outside Hong
Kong if the law really failed to watchdog the standard of directors.
It should be sth very brief and in point forms.

Please help.