It was just an explanation for Hu to understand the status quo in Taiwan's constitution after the fundamental amendment in 1992.

Hence, it is not a response to the 'unification pressure from China', as a pro-independence local newspaper claimed.

As the former spokesman of the ruling KMT, I agree that this debate was partially raised by the over-simplification of the term 'one country, two areas'. Its complete version should be 'one Republic of China (the formal name for Taiwan), two areas (including Taiwan area and mainland area)'.

More importantly, this constitutional concept is in line with the 1992 consensus - one China with different interpretations - because the 'one China' in our interpretation is the 'Republic of China (ROC)'.

Ironically, this constitutional framework was once supported by the people who now lead the opposition to it.

Huang Kun-huei, chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union, said our mainland policy was 'one country, two areas, three phases' in 1992 when he chaired the Mainland Affairs Council.

Tsai Ing-wen, former leader of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), not only helped install the concept 'one country, four areas' into Taiwan's legal system in 1993, but also in 2003 said that the idea of 'one country, two areas' corresponded to the ROC constitution when she was minister of the Mainland Affairs Council. Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou did not propose anything new to Beijing. Taiwan's government still bases its cross-strait policy on the ROC's constitutional framework.

Instead, the only thing vague in this dispute is the DPP's stance. Does it support the current constitution or want a new one that rejects 'one country, two areas'?

Charles I-Hsin Chen, London, England

MTR Corp should clean up its act

Various commentators in the South China Morning Post have questioned the need for the MTR Corporation to raise fares by 5.4 per cent in June, bearing in mind that even with its existing fare structure the organisation generates more than HK$1 billion a month.

Be that as it may, let us recognise that in the MTR network, Hong Kong has one of the world's most effective and safest underground train systems. It also used to be a byword for cleanliness, but that accolade has faded over recent years.

It is unfortunate that the MTR has not spent enough of its colossal income on enhancing the travelling experience of its millions of daily passengers.

Passengers are not allowed to eat and drink in paid areas, but many now do so and you never see any MTR employees on board the trains, enforcing the ban. As a result, this regulation is commonly ignored.

Too many of those who consume food and drink are also not above throwing empty packages on the carriage floor, or leaving the greasy remains of food on seats. When did any of your readers last see cleaners on board clearing up this kind of mess?

More dangerous are the plastic bags which join abandoned cigarette ends in the stairwells and corridors of stations.

Stepping on a plastic bag on a staircase, especially in wet weather, could cause a dangerous fall. Again, few MTR cleaners are deployed to keep these areas as pristine as they used to be.

So I have a suggestion for the MTR Corp.

To help justify your fare increases, spend more of your profits on the additional staff services needed to keep stations and trains clean. That would help bring public opinion round to at least accepting the fare increases, as well as returning our MTR to the position of being the cleanest underground system in the world.

Paul Surtees, Mid-Levels

Duty to passengers forgotten

The request by the MTR Corporation to set higher fare tariffs in June is another example of exploitation of the marginalised majority in our society.

This is a public utility which seems to have ignored the importance of corporate social responsibility.

If greed and selfishness replace our core values of diligence and mutual support, there is a risk that Hong Kong could turn into a society where an attitude of indifference prevails.

Desmond Chan, Yau Tong

Worried about A380 incidents

I refer to the report ('Flights delayed after jet lands with burst tyre', April 8).

More than 100 flights, both arriving and departing, were delayed at Hong Kong airport after an Airbus 380 plane landed with a burst tyre. Also, a runway was closed for four hours.

This latest incident prompts me to ask what is wrong with the A380 which has been in service since 2007. Although a burst tyre is minor, what happened with this aircraft caused the delays I described and this was an inconvenience to a large number of passengers.

In 2007 when the A380 arrived in Hong Kong for the first time, I visited the aircraft and had a great conversation with the pilots.

The captain said that like the Airbus 320 the A380 was easy to operate and the pilots were very pleased with it.

However, since it was launched there have been intermittent problems. In one major incident in 2010, the engine on a Qantas A380 exploded, forcing the pilots to make an emergency landing in Singapore.

I recently had lunch with someone in a senior position in Cathay Pacific Airways. He asked if I had ever flown on an A380. I said I had not, as it was not a reliable aircraft.

I think it is a good thing that Cathay Pacific has made the decision not to purchase any A380 aircraft.

Eugene Li, Deep Water Bay

Waste levy better than incinerator

Different organisations and government departments have tried hard to promote recycling. And yet Hong Kong people are still not as environmentally friendly as they should be.

The government is proposing a levy on the disposal of domestic waste. Such charges can encourage people to reduce the amount of refuse they generate and this puts less pressure on the landfills which are nearing capacity.

All citizens must play a more active role in protecting our environment despite the fact that this is a society oriented towards economic development.

What will become of us if we enjoy the benefits of our prosperity but leave a legacy of wasteful habits? We should not wait until it is too late to reverse the damage. We should all support the government's proposed waste charging scheme.

If people sorted their refuse at source, this would reduce volumes of rubbish. It would make things easier for people working in the recycling industry and be a better option than building an incinerator that would exacerbate air pollution.

Leftover food could be turned into compost for the agricultural sector. This is much better than potentially harmful chemical fertilisers.

Protecting the earth is not only the duty of the environmentalists, but it is the responsibility of all of us.

Jennifer Leung, Ngau Tau Kok

Name not made public by authority

I refer to the letter by Dr Richard Ma from London ('Wrong to reveal HIV victim's name', April 6) which requires clarification.

The Hospital Authority has never disclosed to the media nor the public the identity of this health care worker on any occasion.

Ever since the incident was made known to the authority, the information was restricted to only a handful of colleagues on a need-to-know basis.

While immediate action was taken to seek advice from internal experts as well as from the Department of Health, we had kept the identity of the colleague under strict confidentiality all along.

We will continue to stand by the policy of upholding patient privacy, whether the patient is health care staff or not.

This is to encourage patients to seek timely and appropriate treatment.

At the same time, concerted efforts of various local health authorities and patient groups are paramount to educate the public on the need to maintain patient identity confidentiality.

Dr Liu Hing-wing, director (quality and safety), Hospital Authority