His reasons are because the liaison office of the central government allegedly 'interfered' by advising the chief executive which principal officials he should nominate as well as lobbying for pro-establishment candidates.

The central government has a constitutional right to appoint all principal officials in Hong Kong, therefore it should be entitled to voice its opinion through the liaison office.

I am sure the chief executive also expresses his opinion, and eventually compromises are made by both parties. This is all constitutional. As for lobbying for pro-establishment candidates, the Basic Law gives everyone free speech and that includes the liaison office.

There is no article in the Basic Law that gags the liaison office and prevents it from expressing its views to certain parties.

Our judiciary, civil service, and the reality that most national laws do not apply to Hong Kong, are proof that the SAR has a high degree of autonomy.

Furthermore, by 2017 Hong Kong people will be allowed to select their leader through universal suffrage, which was never allowed under the colonial government.

Peter Call, Wan Chai

Voice of dissent essential

I refer to Yeung Hiu-mei's letter ('Tactics end up harming taxpayers', June 19).

The political and business elites want ordinary Hong Kong citizens to think in this way regarding the actions of the pan-democrats.

Time and again, pro-establishment bodies, particularly the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, use the alleged waste of taxpayers' money as an excuse to criticise tactics employed by the pan-democrats.

However, the cost to the treasury of the strategies of the pan-democrats is a drop in the ocean compared with, for example, tax savings made by developers in their land purchases from indigenous villagers.

Filibustering tactics are legal.

Sadly many citizens seem to forget that Hong Kong's political system is unjust. That injustice strips Hong Kong citizens of their political rights. Your correspondent should ask why this is the case.

In addition to this unjust political system is a government that favours the rich.

The gap between rich and poor is growing wider.

Add to that the recent scandals involving some top officials and former officials. A clear picture emerges.

Obviously the checks and balances in our political set-up have failed.

The pan-democrats represent whatever is left of them.

Just imagine if Hong Kong did not have these dissenting voices. Possibly we would have flats costing even more per square foot by now, or unlimited perks for future chief executives perhaps?

Everyone works for his or her self-interest. There's nothing wrong with that. The pan-democrats are no different in this respect than the rich or the government, as they pursue their own agenda.

The difference is that such an agenda also acts in the interests of ordinary citizens like your correspondent and myself.

Tony Yuen, Mid-Levels

No place for abusive language

I would like to condemn the kind of behaviour that is often displayed by People Power lawmaker Wong Yuk-man, including sometimes the use of abusive language.

You see him acting in this wholly inappropriate way inside the Legislative Council chamber and at subcommittee meetings.

Of course, we should allow and indeed encourage the airing of different opinions, but when expressing these views we must show respect for each other. He was elected as a lawmaker to serve Hong Kong and should not behave in such an imperious manner to government ministers and representatives, as if they were somehow his subordinates.

As a legislator, he is entitled to seek clarification on matters and voice his disapproval, but he has no right to humiliate people in the process.

He has set a very bad example for our younger generation and I believe that his behaviour has a negative impact. This type of conduct is not representative of Hong Kong's core moral values.

S. Yam, North Point

Ban overseas buyers from older flats

Incoming chief executive Leung Chun-ying's approach to managing the Hong Kong housing market is out of step with the needs of ordinary people.

His statement that, '[But] in the current market scenario, foreign buyers are not affecting locals' chances of buying a home' ('Leung backtracks on non-local sales curb', June 19) fails to take into account that ordinary people need to plan long-term to purchase a home in Hong Kong.

Leung's argument to do nothing appears to be based solely on a change in mainland spending patterns in the last year.

What Hong Kong needs is a stable housing policy, and not one that reacts, knee-jerk-like, to short-term market conditions.

What I do not understand is why new flats were the target of this policy in the first place?

In order to prevent property speculation and hence drive the prices up for local people, a more sensible option would be to restrict overseas buyers to buying only new flats.

The secondary market would be reserved exclusively for local people.

The market price would be set by local demand and foreigners who genuinely wished to own properties for purposes other than speculation would still have the opportunity to do so.

This would have the dual effect of keeping property prices in both the new and secondary markets at manageable levels.

Matthew Bond, Lantau

West wing revamp not convincing

I question the rationale for the government's proposed redevelopment of the west wing using a 'build, operate, transfer' model.

This proposed model will enable a private developer to enjoy a revenue stream from rental income for 30 years before the building reverts to government control.

If the government needs office space in Central, it has sufficient resources to renovate or redevelop the west wing without private developer involvement.

If the intent is to bring more office space to the market in Central, a move I would support, there are better options.

Sell the 14 floors the Hong Kong Monetary Authority occupies in Two IFC back to the developer and move the authority to less prominent and significantly smaller premises (a renovated west wing, perhaps?).

Another option would be to sell the Central Market site for redevelopment.

The government's plans to turn this building into a central oasis are unconvincing.

Its location is better than the west wing and connectivity to Central and Mid-Levels via the escalator is another plus.

The build, operate, transfer approach will give a lucky developer a lucrative rental stream without the need to allow for long-term maintenance or redevelopment costs and the government gets a 30-year-old building with tenants to manage, and maintenance bills to pay.

Ron Adrianse, Sai Kung

Sad to see so many small stores close

It is intolerable that The Link Reit has managed to cause the closure of so many small stores over the past decade.

Many old shops which people grew up with have closed and will stay alive only in our collective memory.

There was a toy store I always used to visit near my old estate when I was small.

Whenever I return to the estate for a visit I can see the changes that have taken place. All the small businesses like that store have gone.

I would love to have gone into the shop and talked to the owner.

It all comes down to the principle of survival of the fittest and I think it is cruel.

Rents have risen dramatically since The Link took over malls from the Housing Authority. These malls have been revamped so that they are just full of brand-name shops.

I appreciate that businesses exist to make a profit, but you have to strike a balance. I hope the government will bring in some measures to control The Link.

Wong Tsun-kit, Fanling