They walk up to you and start asking you questions, sometimes even personal questions that don't relate to their product. If you ignore them, they will walk in front of you and block your way. If you say that you're in a hurry, they'll say it won't take long and continue to follow you until you stop. If you say you are not interested, they'll start stuffing leaflets into your hands. If you turn them down, some say unpleasant things about you.

To be honest, these promoters sometimes scare me. I try my best to avoid them, and I am pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. It seems they are abusing their rights to promote their products. Thus, there is a necessity to tighten controls on these street promotions and protect the public from these uncomfortable situations.

Valerie Or, Mid-Levels

Q Should the ambulance service be an independent department?

No. The ambulance service has been part of the Hong Kong Fire Services Department for nearly a decade. These close partners have efficiently saved many lives. What will happen if the ambulance service becomes an independent department? Obviously it will be a big disadvantage to society.

First, the two services understand each other and have worked well for so many years. Whenever there's an emergency, ambulances and fire trucks are sent at the same time. However, if the ambulance service becomes independent, communication will be a problem. The 999 emergency lines will have to redirect the calls to the ambulance service. This could waste crucial time.

Second, the government would have to spend extra funds to run the 'independent' ambulance department. This will just increase the deficit.

Having an independent ambulance department won't improve this critical service. I believe it'll be best to have the ambulance service stay with the fire department. This won't just help the government, but also the lives of Hong Kong citizens.

Chester Chow, Mid-Levels

Q Is it appropriate to name the University of Hong Kong medical faculty after Li Ka-shing?

Mr Li's philanthropy and commitment to furthering the causes of education and medicine are unparalleled in Hong Kong and beyond. He sets an example for us all - in giving back to the community, he makes an investment in the future on our behalf.

Without a doubt, Mr Li's donation of $1 billion, without condition, to HKU is characteristic of his dedication to the pursuit of excellence. It is such a shame that this meaningful and critical donation to HKU has been marred by the naming debacle, which detracts from the significance of Mr Li's endowment.

The donation is unprecedented in Hong Kong's history and sets a standard for the establishment of strategic partnerships between universities and the community. Because of the cuts in expenditure on tertiary education, the need to install a culture of private giving is increasingly important. I believe Mr Li's landmark donation will be instrumental in determining the future of philanthropy.

Financial support must be devoted to education if Hong Kong is to develop into a competitive, knowledge-based economy. Our tertiary education institutions will benefit much from enhanced resources. In this respect, the government's hands are tied and contributions from the private sector must be established as part of the financial model for educational institutes.

The $1 billion gift to HKU is a considerable war chest which will enable it to elevate its standing as a world-class university.

I can appreciate the emotional attachment that certain alumni have to the name of HKU's medical faculty. However, 'What's in a name?' The practical needs of the faculty's survival as an institute of excellence are of greater importance. The aggressive campaign against the naming has caused an embarrassing situation for all parties involved. The renaming of the medical faculty was a token of gratitude from HKU, and Mr Li accepted, touched by the gesture. It has now become a political tempest. I am not sure how HKU or the opposing alumni can bow out of the situation gracefully. I hope that this will not deter private donations to the cause of education in future.

Robert Chen, Fo Tan

Q Should drug dispensing and medical treatment services be separated?

Separating doctor services and dispensing has become a hot topic since the recent dispensing mishap at a Wong Tai Sin clinic. I am concerned that there has been more interest in 'who should have the right to dispense' than 'how to prevent human errors in dispensing'.

Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy shop owners are all humans and no one profession is immune from a momentary lapse in concentration causing an error. The lesson from this dispensing mishap should focus on how to improve safety-check mechanisms when dispensing and how to detect errors early. Any attempts to capitalise on this mishap may benefit a certain group in the community but will do little for overall health care.

Edmond Wong, Ho Man Tin

On other matters ...

In response to the letter from Ma Wai-tuk, chief superintendent, police public relations branch, I can only hope that he does not really believe his own meretricious persiflage. It is obvious that the police do not consistently enforce the seat-belt law because there are so many people around who ignore it.

In countries where the law is strictly enforced, seat belts are used much more consistently simply because it is clearly understood that if a police officer notices that you are not wearing a seat belt, it will cost you money.

In Hong Kong, officers seem to ignore or be ignorant of any infraction of the law other than what they are assigned to observe.

When was the last time you saw an individual roaming police officer issue a ticket? Never! When was the last time you observed 15 police officers lined up to issue speeding tickets for going 60km/h on a piece of road designed and capable of travelling safety at 70km/h but with an inexplicable speed limit of 50km/h? Every week.

Recently I asked a police officer sitting on his motorcycle why he did not issue tickets to the drivers who were driving by him with their children sitting or even standing in the front or back seats of their cars without using a seat belt. His response was a look of amazement and a shrug.

If the force had officers whose job was to issue tickets for any infractions they observed, at any time, then maybe the message would get across to the public that laws will be consistently enforced. I know that I could personally issue at least 50 to 100 tickets a day without breaking a sweat.

Until then, Mr Ma, I can only say that, 'You can fool some of the people all of the time; all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time'. Nice try.

Jeffrey Sweet, Sai Kung