Mr Tung's successor should have a five-year term as the Basic Law provides only for this. Beijing could use the present 800-person Election Committee to elect his successor. The top leaders are killing many birds with one stone. With sound minds in Beijing, I see a bright future for Hong Kong and China.

KENNETH KWOK, Tsim Sha Tsui

Wanted: disaster experts

I refer to the article 'Revealed: HK's killer wave disaster plan' (Sunday Morning Post, February 27) about the proposed tsunami plan for Hong Kong. While such a plan is obviously a good idea, my concerns are about the quality of local advice.

I was also a bit alarmed that any evacuation plan 'would not save everybody', and equally curious that such a statement came from a geologist and not an expert in disaster management. In the press coverage of the Hong Kong tsunami issue, I have been a little confused about where the expertise lies and exactly what constitutes a 'tsunami expert' - a term coined at the end of Sunday's article.

Was the geological profession blamed for an inadequate warning in the Indian Ocean disaster? I attended a seminar at Hong Kong University in January, where our local geologists seemed unable to answer key questions about tsunami processes and were also unaware that Hong Kong was part of the Pacific warning system. The Hong Kong Observatory was quoted as saying that plans were already in place ('Are we ready?', January 20), but it considered placing sensors in the South China Sea as not cost effective.

Would the government disaster management and police departments be responsible for co-ordination of evacuation plans? There also appears to be a lot of 'cross expertise' on this subject in the press which makes it obvious that before December there was no such thing as a 'tsunami expert' in Hong Kong.

There seems to be a critical need for multi-disciplinary co-operation between geologists (with imported skills in tsunamis if necessary) and disaster management agencies to ensure that Hong Kong has the best-quality information. As a series of islands Hong Kong is vulnerable to such natural phenomena, but must look beyond an island mindset to address the problem.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

MTR drug pushers

Up until a very short time ago, addictive recreational drug pushers were not a problem when one was travelling on the MTR. Now they are.

Why did the MTR offer retail space to the tobacco industry, which now pushes addictive drugs to every young person who walks by or goes into a shop for candy or snacks? It is impossible for children to buy anything without facing a wall full of addictive drugs. The constant stream of drug abusers buying tobacco is a form of 'viral' marketing to children - whereby you teach them that taking addictive drugs that make you sick is normal - without having to say a word.

When did the MTR change its policy on drug pushers - or more accurately to whom did it outsource shop rentals, and why did this agent introduce addictive drug sales to the MTR? This is a brand-new policy which must be stopped right away.

Some landlords, like the Marco Polo Hong Kong Hotel, are requiring that new retailers run tobacco-free establishments. When is the MTR going to change the terms of rental contracts to prohibit the sale of a drug which kills 5,000 Hong Kong people a year? It has a responsibility to guarantee that our children are safe from institutional addictive drug pushers, at least while they go to and from school on the MTR.

ANNELISE CONNELL, Mid-Levels

WTO protests valid

The letter 'Stand firm against WTO protesters in HK' (March 3) claimed that the vast majority of protesters against the World Trade Organisation are 'radical leftists, punks and anarchists, whose answer to the world's problems seems to be reduced to phrases like 'Smash capitalism'', and that 'smashing a window of an HSBC branch will make you a hero in these circles'.

Though I have never demonstrated against the WTO, I believe that it merits criticism, and sympathise with those who through demonstrating wish to highlight such criticism. I nor any NGO I know condones wanton violence.

The letter-writer also expressed the belief that 'even moderates among them (NGOs) are fighting everything that made our city prosper and currently helps billions of people in Asia out of poverty: a free society of capitalistic values, including free trade.' Both propositions are untrue.

First, the demonstrators are not against capitalism per se, but against the inconsistent application of WTO rules. The issue is not capitalism and free trade, but justice. Second, the capitalistic values that shaped the fortunes of Hong Kong's elite are also responsible for the unusually high levels of pay inequalities, poverty, and the wide gap in standards of living.

Consider the strengths that allowed Hong Kong to prosper: trade networks, political stability, law and order, and, most of all, our luck at being in the right place to make the most of political and economic upheaval in China.

But I do agree with the letter in hoping that the Hong Kong police and public will greet the protesters appropriately: professionally, and without prejudice. And, hopefully, consider their argument.

EVAN FOWLER, Sha Tin

Lift education spending

This suggestion may come too late for the financial secretary's next budget, but better late than never. Since we constantly hear that educational standards are falling and that schools have to close, why doesn't the government allocate more revenue to education?

After all, our expenditure in this vital area is proportionately less of our GDP than in many poorer economies.

I suggest that the new budget increase the tax on corporate income by 1 per cent, with all of the revenues derived being designated for educational improvement. No self-respecting tycoon would mind donating 1 per cent of his income to such an important cause, and any businessmen's groups that lobbied against it would be publicly shamed as penny-pinching Scrooges.

J. GARNER, Shamshuipo

Convenience store bins

I refer to the article 'Burning all our waste is no solution, says legislator' (February 22), in which an unnamed official says that we should 'reduce and recover waste as much as possible at the source'.

This is a worthy sentiment, but Hong Kong is sadly lagging behind other countries. The only area of recycling in evidence is the collection of paper and cardboard. There is no government-organised system of large-scale recycling of domestic rubbish. In Germany, households have different bins for different substances. We need a similar system in Hong Kong.

I am aware of the argument that putting a second or third bin in tiny kitchens may seem impractical, but large bins should be provided by or inside housing blocks. In England, bottle banks are regularly used, and people get into the habit of doing the weekly bottle run. In Hong Kong, convenience stores could start a trend by providing bins.

DEBORAH DEBES, North Point