Talk:Tsang Yam-pui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Tsang Yam-pui, GBS (Chinese: 曾蔭培, Pinyin: Zēng Yīnpéi, born 1946, Hong Kong) was the Commissioner of Police of Hong Kong from January 2001 to December 2003. Tsang joined the Royal Hong Kong Police Force (now Hong Kong Police Force) in January 1966 as a Probationary Inspector.

His elder brother, Donald Tsang, was previously Financial Secretary and has been the Chief Executive of Hong Kong since mid-2005 and other siblings have all attained success in their chosen field. Their father was a member of the HK police, attaining the rank of Staff Sergeant I.

Tsang Yam-pui was considered a formidable Deputy Commissioner, a driving force behind many and much-needed initiatives to modernize the HKP.

Following his retirement, in June 2004, Tsang Yam-pui was appointed Executive Director of New World Service Holdings, a subsidiary of New World Development. This move was criticised in many quarters by those uncomfortable with retired government officials with extensive connections and valuable pensions gaining further lucrative employment with Hong Kong's corporate tycoons. Tsang's remit covers New World's bus and ferry companies.

Non-neutral point of view[edit]

This article is unsourced and some of the text would be considered by many to be non-neutral point of view in violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. An example of questionable text is:

His period as Commissioner proved to be more beneficial for the government than for HK's 27,000 policemen and women. Notwithstanding the fine work the force did during the difficult period between 1997 and 2004, Tsang never challenged government economic policies on pay and conditions to the severe detriment of his officers' interests. His failure to make the case for them set the tone for a dismal decade for HK's police officers, and has had a severely negative effect on morale - one that has still to be properly addressed and corrected.

This text needs verifiable sources or it should be removed. Can anyone help? Truthanado (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a goodly section of the article on this basis, and sourced part of what's left. --je deckertalk 05:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]