In fact, the public generally are not opposed to renovation work in official residences. As a result, Mr Tsang need not hesitate to disclose any such project to Legco. Mr Tsang's successor in his former post of financial secretary, Antony Leung Kam-chung, stepped down under public pressure for purchasing a car before a rise in duty was announced. This shows that a lack of transparency may cost a civil servant his political career.

It is hoped that the trouble caused by the Fanling facelift will give Mr Tsang more experience in dealing with similar issues, especially those regarding the use of taxpayers' money.

HERMES SHIN, To Kwa Wan

Police beyond compare

What a pleasure it was to see a local business personality publicly admit that pay levels in the disciplined services cannot be compared to the private sector ('Chamber stands by survey on civil service pay', August 19).

Perhaps Eden Y. Woon, of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, would be kind enough to point this out to the secretary for the civil service, who insists upon applying the results of an upcoming survey of non-disciplined staff to police officers, among others. We live in hope.

DAVID WILLIAMS, secretary, Overseas Inspectors Association, Hong Kong Police

Gorging amid starvation

Why did the Sunday Morning Post give an eating contest front-page coverage? ('83 dumplings in 8 mins and he's not full', August 14).

The merits of doing so quite frankly elude me. I cannot see sense in the contest at all. In view of famine and starvation in our world, your newspaper should see the travesty of both the contest and giving it media exposure.

THOMAS HOHL, Mid-Levels

Dog problem on trail

It took billions of dollars of investment in the Disneyland project to realise that Hong Kong has a dog problem ('New rescue plan offers reprieve to Disney dogs', Sunday Morning Post, August 14, and the letter of the same date, 'Dealing with dog packs').

A few years ago when Sir Murray MacLehose was in the news, a group of us decided to honour the former governor by visiting his famous trail in a country park in the New Territories. All the children were excited, but when they reached the trail the excitement fizzled, and indeed our Sunday outing was ruined.

As soon as we entered the trail, many big dogs came out barking at us, like something from a poster of The Lion King. Half of us chickened out. After taking a breather for 10 minutes, the rest marched boldly on, but they too eventually succumbed to the barking, even though they knew that 'barking dogs seldom bite'.

We have never been able to understand how this trail became so famous, or how people have been able to make best use of it. How is it that the tourist association has no knowledge of the dogs?

Maybe those who visit these trails are animal lovers who get on easily with the dogs, or there are dog-eaters out there - we later learned that areas near some trails in country parks were inhabited by thieves.

NALINI DASWANI, Baldwin, New York

Rap goes mainstream

I was gravely disappointed to see the subhead of the Review article 'Know your enemy' (Sunday Morning Post, August 14). It read: 'These days, rap is mainstream and getting whiter by the minute. Back then, it was black and terrifying'.

This subhead reeks of racist connotations, assuming a certain stereotype for people who are 'white', and another for people who are 'black'.

There is an assumption of a singular identity for those who are considered white in the US. This bypasses the fact that whites there come from diverse origins, socio-economic classes and have unique individual tastes and experiences. As do blacks.

The second sentence of the subhead enforces a stereotype by juxtaposing the words 'black' and 'terrifying'. It seems that racist ideology criminalising black people continues, even in Hong Kong.

How can Hong Kong call itself an international city when this newspaper trivialises its readership? But let's not pick on the Sunday Morning Post. When will the bill on racial discrimination finally become law?

And when it does, how effectively will it change the Hong Kong community's attitudes towards people whom we deem as outsiders, as well as benefit our city's ethnic minorities? For Hong Kong to be truly considered a World City, we must not neglect the human element - the remarkable diversity - of globalisation.

P. WONG, Mongkok

Lhasa railway protests

The Tibetans quoted in your article 'End of the line for Tibet?' (Sunday Morning Post, August 14) claim that in resuming the project to build the rooftop railway to Lhasa, the central government is merely looking to 'tighten its grip on the independence-minded province' and to exploit the region's natural resources, rather than improve the economic conditions of ordinary Tibetans.

I believe their cynicism is justified. Though they will undoubtedly benefit in some way from improved transport links to the east, this will be a side-effect rather than a central goal of the project. I sympathise fully with the economic concerns of these Tibetans.

I take issue, however, with human rights groups which demand an independent Tibet and an end to the 'Hanification' of the province. These predominantly western organisations conveniently neglect past atrocities committed by European colonialists in the Americas and Australia against the native inhabitants.

Not only did they plunder the land of natural resources, but under the notion that they were bringing civilisation to 'lesser breeds', they wiped out much of the indigenous peoples and their cultures. Yet now that whites have governed the US, Canada and Australia for 200 years, there is no question of their returning these countries to the native inhabitants.

Tibet was conquered by China 700 years ago during the Yuan (Mongol) Dynasty. The central government claims that Tibet has been under the control of Chinese governments ever since. Ethnic Han Chinese have probably lived in Tibet for much longer than Europeans have lived in the Americas and Australia.

Even the exiled, India-based, self-proclaimed government of Tibet agrees that the province, after a period of autonomy following the Yuan Dynasty, came under the rule of the Qing Dynasty until 1911, and was then incorporated into the People's Republic in 1951. Presumably, assuming the mainland governs the province for 200 years this time, there should be no question of an independent Tibet. Or is this yet another case of double standards?

GRACE WONG, Aberdeen