Consequently there is a great deal of pushing and shoving on platforms which have no screen doors. These doors should have been a priority improvement at Hung Hom. The display might say the time is 8.45am and your train leaves at 8.46. But how do you know if you actually have a full minute to reach your platform, or only a few seconds? Announcements are made that 'this train is about to leave, please board immediately', but with possibly three to four trains departing at the same time, it is impossible to work out which train they mean.

Also the announcement urging people to 'leave the train immediately' when it reaches the terminus is confusing.

It in made in Cantonese, Putonghua and English, with the English message still playing when new passengers are already boarding the train.

I have seen people, probably tourists, getting into the train and then, being puzzled and returning to the platform because the announcement to alight is still being broadcast.

Mr Tsui said that 'the platform has been upgraded with new lighting and flooring and more space has been created to facilitate a smooth interchange and passenger flow'.

Personally I have not noticed any difference worth mentioning regarding the floors or the lights, and there is certainly not enough space to ensure the smooth passenger flow he talks about.

The platforms with their ugly ceiling and wall structures of pipes and panels and no air-conditioning, remind me of an old industrial hall or factory, not a modern and 'improved' station platform.

Last but not least, I am still, and will continue to be, very dissatisfied with the extra interchange and several minutes added wait at Hung Hom to and from East Tsim Sha Tsui station.

Nina Cheung, Sha Tin

'Best city' site no serious study

After reading former legislator Paul Cheng Ming-fun's letter ('HK lawmakers lucky to be here', October 23), I had to take a look at the CNN website, describing Hong Kong as the world's best city.

Among the top accolades were - 'public transport rules' (agreed); the Wan Chai stripper zone (wow); consulates of 115 countries (great); 'star-quality tutors' (yeah?), and two theme parks. How does that make us unique?

The list goes on with admittedly more valid reasons. But I would think Mr Cheng would want to use a better - that is, academic - source to justify the claim of the greatest city on earth.

I, for one, am unconvinced that the 'environmental light-bulb' voucher is a grand scheme to reduce carbon emissions.

Has anyone considered that a lot of people already use these light bulbs?

Mark Chan, Tuen Mun

Worm compost a better solution

While the idea of recycling food waste as pig feed sounds attractive from an environmental perspective ('Waste food issue could be a real pig to solve', October 22) and we all would agree that throwing away good food is a sinful waste, there are practical problems with such recycling.

Foot-and-mouth disease is commonly spread by pigs eating pork or pork products from infected pigs.

For this reason most countries ban the feeding of restaurant waste and food scraps (swill) to pigs.

Hong Kong imports a great deal of pork products from jurisdictions where foot-and- mouth disease is endemic, so the risk of an outbreak is substantial.

While not harmful to people, it is economically damaging to farmers to suffer an outbreak and their neighbours' farms may easily be affected.

It would be most unfair for those responsible Hong Kong pig farmers who give regular compound feed to suffer losses because of the recklessness of a few swill feeders nearby.

It should also be borne in mind that mad cow disease, and its presumed human form CJD, arose when farmers started feeding animal parts to other animals. We should try to minimise the opportunity for new prion diseases to develop in animals that may pose a risk to human health in the future.

Feeding animal protein to farm animals, be they cattle, sheep or pigs, is just a bad idea from a public health perspective.

Perhaps vermicomposting (with earthworms) our food waste would be a better solution, as worm casts make fertiliser for Hong Kong's thriving plant nursery industry and medicinal supplements like lumbrokinase can be extracted from the worms.

Simon Appleby, Sai Kung

The monotony of monopoly

Bill Proudfit is right to point to the advantages of living in Discovery Bay ('Residents just love to complain', October 27). The town planning is world class. What has people complaining is the dead hand of monopoly exercised by Hong Kong Resort.

The effects of monopoly are seen in every aspect of life in Discovery Bay, from transport to retail franchising and property management. Discovery Bay is a missed opportunity, an example of what is wrong with Hong Kong as a whole.

It could be among the best living locations in the world. It would be, if not for the unenlightened corporate greed at the heart of its government.

Paul Flynn, Clear Water Bay

Clarifying royal succession

Gywnne Dyer's article ('Thais begin to ponder the unmentionable', October 22) contains some incorrect information about the royal succession which I wish to clarify.

The issue of royal succession is governed by clear rules and procedures in both the Palace Law on Succession B.E. 2467 (1924) and the present constitution.

According to these rules and procedures, it is the king's prerogative to appoint his heir to the throne. Once the king makes such a proclamation, the line of succession is clear. Only in the case where the king has not appointed his heir may the Privy Council, by virtue of Section 23 of the constitution, submit the name of the successor to the throne to the Council of Ministers who will further submit this name to the National Assembly for approval.

In December 1972, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn was proclaimed crown prince, or in other words, heir to the throne, in accordance with the Palace Law on Succession.

There is thus no warranted basis for speculation that the Privy Council may change the succession as indicated by Dyer in his article.

Jitti Suwannik, consul-general, Thai Consulate

Tsang made an honest mistake

I do not think Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen had any intention of helping his relatives when he announced the light-bulb voucher scheme in the policy address.

Officials in administrations who wanted relatives to gain from policies that were adopted, would not act in such a public manner. It would not make sense. Mr Tsang has simply made an honest mistake. He should have foreseen that problems would arise with a perceived conflict of interest, unless he clarified matters when introducing the policy initiative.

This affair also shows a lack of experience and an inability to handle such matters. Some even regard him as 'politically tone deaf' ('Tsang should make U-turn on ill-conceived light-bulb initiative', October 21). He should take greater care in future.

He should give greater thought before implementing a measure and bear in mind that it is unwise to make hasty decisions.

Royhinz Ho, Kwun Tong

Belated revamp

I think the preservation plan for Central, announced in the policy address, is a good idea, but it has really come too late.

For example, Central Market will be included in the project. It is in a prime location and the land value in that area is high?

I am surprised it did nothing about this location for several years and yet continued with reclamation projects, citing a shortage of land as a reason. However, at least officials have finally recognised the need to revitalise these buildings and I hope the project can go ahead as soon as possible.

Lee Pui-man, Sha Tin

New lease of life

I think the redevelopment of 1,000 old industrial buildings is a sensible move ('Owners of old factories offered incentives to convert or rebuild', October 15).

In cities all over the world, officials talk about the need for sustainable development and this concept has to be looked at from three angles. From a social aspect, these revitalised old buildings will enhance the image people have of Hong Kong and create job opportunities.

From an economic standpoint, the renovated factories will be worth more and will earn more rental revenue or fetch a higher price if they are sold. Because they will not be demolished, there will be little waste and this is good for the environment.

Toby Rosner Chan, Sha Tin