His proposals lead me to wonder if he has ever been to Yung Shue Wan? Quite apart from the highly questionable need for anything other than what would be a welcome upgrade to the library, this sudden and unasked for promotion of the interests of the residents raises the critical question for Mr Chan: where does he think all this building work will go?

I fear that the short answer can only be on a massive reclamation of the bay, no doubt followed by an assault on the local business community, forcing it to either move into the block house or else out of business, as happened on Peng Chau, I seem to recall.

I should declare that I have invested heavily in Yung Shue Wan and stand to lose most of it, if this is the game plan. I will not be alone. The physical change that threatens Yung Shue Wan will result in it becoming a far less interesting place to visit, never mind live.

Until this issue is sorted out, there can be little incentive to invest in Yung Shue Wan. And if it is just a case of spending money, there are plenty of much better candidates. Just ask around, over here, Mr Chan.

Peter Berry, Lamma

Phone call not enough for organ donors

I have recently registered with the centralised organ donations register.

I think that the Department of Health should improve its confirmation procedure. Currently, it only has someone call to verify donors' particulars and does not send letters of confirmation to donors.

This is a one-way process in which the department can verify the application is valid but the donors have no idea if the caller is really from the government.

Furthermore, I found this confirmation by phone call a show of disrespect for something as solemn as being willing to donate my organs.

A phone call from an unknown person is all that I can count on to confirm my willingness to be a donor. I think this is ridiculous.

If you cannot show respect to the donors when they are alive, I suppose not too much respect will be given after their death.

I am against wasting paper resources, but perhaps the department can e-mail a confirmation to people who have registered to be donors so they can feel sure about the whole thing.

If the department can be more serious about the registration process, I think it will encourage better participation in the organ donation programme.

Antoine So Chi-chiu, Tsing Yi

Tobacco tax rise is only part of the solution

The increase in Hong Kong's smoking population is recognised as a problem. That is why the government raised tobacco tax by 50 per cent in the budget.

I think it will partly achieve its aims. Some older people and youngsters will not have enough money to smoke. However, while I understand the aim of the tax, I do not think it is necessarily the best way to achieve a reduction in the number of smokers.

If the government wants to see a long-term improvement, it needs to change people's attitudes. This is especially important when it comes to young people.

Youngsters are often influenced by peer pressure and that can start them smoking. The key to preventing that happening is education. The government should organise courses so that teenagers are made fully aware about the effects of smoking. If youngsters are informed, then they will hopefully make the right decision about cigarettes.

Helen So, Happy Valley

Rooftop garden is not public open space

I refer to your report and editorial ('Upmarket bar's rooftop garden is public space' and 'Time for government to address public spaces', April 5). The rooftop garden of 60-66 Johnston Road is not a public open space pursuant to the land lease and the approved master layout plan of the development.

The current arrangement of making the roof garden accessible to the public at designated hours is the intention of the Urban Renewal Authority and its joint venture partner to facilitate members of the public to enjoy and appreciate the architecture of the restored historical buildings.

Angela Tang, general manager (external relations), Urban Renewal Authority

Link mainland rail route to West Rail

The West Rail line of the MTR is an extremely underutilised system.

It runs seven-carriage trains despite having a capacity to run nine carriages, with waiting times for trains of six to 10 minutes during non-peak hours.

Kam Sheung Road is a station along the network. It is unique in that there is only one building within 100 metres of the perimeter of the station.

There is so much open space and it would be ideal for adding facilities such as building an interchange station to add a separate line to the mainland.

Instead, the MTR Corporation wishes to run the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong express rail link all the way down to Kowloon South, which means extensive construction work.

This will cause pollution and unnecessary inconvenience.

Why not terminate the trains from Guangzhou at Kam Sheung Road instead?

Passengers can then board underused West Rail trains to continue their journey into the city.

Are the extra few minutes that the MTR Corp is proposing passengers can save by bypassing these West Rail stations worth all the extra cost and inconvenience?

G. Marques, Lai Chi Kok

Puzzled investors could do with more help

Alan Alanson in his Banker/Road Warrior column ('How to tell if your financial adviser is a Warren Buffett or Bernie Madoff', April 5) makes some interesting points.

However, he leaves average investors with little to go on because they must know the correct answers before such questions can be properly propounded.

I am confident that most Hong Kong investors do not know the answers and I am also pretty sure that they don't know where to find them.

While it is a service to consumers to raise these points, it would be even more helpful if Mr Alanson would give us guidance on how to find the answers to the questions he says we should be asking our investment counsellors.

Rod Phelps, Clear Water Bay

Official should explain visa difficulties

I agree with William Yip's letter ('Visa scheme should be a two-way street', April 5), but can go one better. He wonders, as I do, why non-permanent residents cannot have the same visa rules and ease of entry to the mainland as Shenzhen residents have to come here.

My question is why, as a Hong Kong permanent resident, do I not have the same scheme as the local mainland residents? It seems quite unfair and I cannot see any rhyme or reason for such restrictions.

Can someone in authority please explain why this is so?

Terry Scott, Sha Tin