Instead of bracketing Chinese-speaking applicants as auxiliary candidates to fill places not taken by non-Chinese students, ESF aims to ensure segregation more effectively by adopting a personalised approach based on subjective appraisal of applicants and their parents.

It is Ms Du Quesnay's belief that the new admission process would not reduce the number of non-Chinese students at ESF schools. In fact, it may even reduce ESF schools' Chinese enrolment.

In education, diversity means an equal opportunity to take part in different education experiences. It differs from segregation, which restricts students' education experiences according to their socio-racial backgrounds.

The ESF's intended change is not meant to rectify its divisive education policy, but to strengthen its function as a bastion of colonialism that promotes segregation and perpetrates unwarranted privileges for non-Chinese and non-residents based on perverse discrimination.

The HKSAR government must withdraw from the colonial practice of offering two segregated systems of subsidised English-medium education - one for Chinese and the other for non-Chinese.

For sustainable long-term development, we must respect our local schools and demand that expatriates who wish to partake in our city's opportunities respect the system where our own children receive their education.

In Japan, if expatriates want public education, they have to send their children to local schools. It's time expatriates in Hong Kong learned to respect our local schools which, both in language standards and in the various academic measures, are generally considered superior to schools in Japan and in most of our expatriates' home countries.

Lau Nai-keung ("New year, new world view, without the Western bias", February 15) ends his piece by saying that the snake will bring us luck.

With views such as his held by [National People's Congress] members, Hong Kong is going to need it.

His premise is that Western democracy is no good if you're hungry. There is certainly a link between hunger and governance.

I'd suggest that if people in China had the mechanism to peacefully change their rulers during the Great Leap Forward, when millions died due to mass starvation, they would have done just that.

Lau's confidence is surely based on the "three decades of unprecedented growth for China" which can almost wholly be attributed to the reintroduction of capitalism to China - something that would have been roundly condemned by members of the NPC just a few years before.

Sounds like ideas honed by the West aren't so bad after all.

It was my understanding that the pull-up advertising screens which plague Sai Yeung Choi Street South and now Nelson Street in Mong Kok had been made illegal. Am I mistaken?

Pedestrians now have the absurd and annoying inconvenience of being forced into narrow channels by the advertisers, in what is one of the most congested areas in Hong Kong. Money seems to trump people in this city.

One recent evening, I saw that one advertiser had blocked off at least half of the already narrow Sai Yeung Choi street, near Argyle Street.

If they aren't illegal, they should be, as they block or restrict public thoroughfares. If they are in fact illegal, who is supposed to be enforcing their removal?

I would like to respond to Albert Cheng's column on the problems of our mass transport system and his suggestion on how to tackle it ("Let government run Hong Kong's transport system", February 15).

Traffic is indeed a big problem. Central, Wan Chai and Hung Hom are often congested, and I think the congestion around the Cross-Harbour Tunnel is the main culprit.

Activists say the government is wholly responsible for the mess, but giving it full control of mass transport without giving room for [private] operators is too radical. Nevertheless, the government plays a big role. Transport secretary Anthony Cheung Bing-leung insists the government is on the right track to shift traffic from the Cross-Harbour Tunnel to the Eastern Harbour Tunnel [by reducing the toll in the latter].

He stands firm on not adjusting tolls at the Western Harbour Tunnel - the only one with traffic three times below its expected capacity.

New transport infrastructure has done nothing to relieve traffic congestion. It is reforms that are desperately needed.

There are a few options available to the government. The first suggestion is constructing the Central-Wan Chai Bypass and improving the Kwun Tong Bypass. But the gamble may be more of a loss, as the project will cause a lot of pollution.

Some protesters suggest diverting cars from the two saturated tunnels to the convenient, but pricey western tunnel. I believe this is the most appropriate solution.

I agree with Cheng that the government should nationalise the Western Harbour Tunnel to dramatically reduce toll fees and allow more people to use it.

Look at the MTR, which has kept fares affordable for all citizens. Why can't the government do the same in the highway system?

I refer to the report ("Options to cut jams at tunnel revealed", February 9).

I am hopeful that all the talk about tackling our air and roadside pollution problems are more than just talk, because we have heard all this before.

But it does seem that the Environmental Protection Department and government are more serious this time.

Still, I am concerned about a statement made by Transport and Housing minister Anthony Cheung Bing-leung that the measures could be in place by the second half of next year. Why such a long time?

After the three-month consultation is completed, why do we need to wait another year before implementing the measures?

Also, truck drivers oppose any increases [to tolls at certain tunnels]. I assume others will, too. So if they protest, will the government - as usual - back down? I hope not. I hope this government will finally show some courage and backbone, unlike prior administrations.

I am looking forward to a response from the relevant authorities.

It is absolutely disgusting for a magistrate to give Mok Chung-ting a mere eight months in jail for savagely setting his dog on fire ("Man jailed eight months for setting pet dog on fire", February 15). Mok should be jailed for at least a year for such extreme cruelty to one of God's creatures.

This case reminds me of the Kowloon couple who were found, last December, to have tied their dogs' mouths with the plastic strips that police use to handcuff criminals.

People who don't want to hear barking have no right to keep pet dogs, it's that simple.

The magistrate who sent a man to jail for eight months because he set fire to a dog admonished the defendant for cruelty to "man's best friend".

Obviously, the magistrate has never been kept awake night after night by incessant barking and the refusal of the owner to do anything about it. Man's best friend quickly becomes man's worst nightmare.

As a victim of a neighbour's dog that barks throughout the night, I fully sympathise with the man who set fire to the noisy mutt. If my neighbour's dog were to spontaneously combust, there would be no tears shed in our village.