Also, it is time that the students started thinking about the livelihoods of other citizens.

Since the "umbrella movement" started, I have heard a lot from members of the Scholarism group talking about a free society and fair elections and asking for people to support them.

When they make these arguments, they emphasise that they are representing Hong Kong people. They only represent a small portion of the population, but not the majority.

They are entitled to express their ideas about elections and the desire for change in society, but they should vacate the roads they are occupying immediately.

Despite the many provocations, including the apparently triad-related attacks in Mong Kok, the Occupy protesters have generally managed to keep their cool.

I trust they will obey justifiable court rulings in the designated spaces.

It is to be hoped that the government also respects the protest and the reasonable objectives, and works to find a mutually satisfactory solution.

Despite widespread support for the objectives of the Occupy movement, the seemingly intractable issue is increasingly the public's dissatisfaction and the pressure that is being placed on a generally tolerant society and those who need to travel on the public transport systems.

Some of your readers may also find it inconvenient, sitting in their limousines with idling engines and chauffeurs.

The daily lives of residents and shopkeepers at the Occupy sites have been affected. Residents have had to put up with a great deal of noise and shopkeepers' businesses have been disrupted. In some cases, they have stopped operating.

There is also great inconvenience for road users as traffic diversions are in place.

Beijing has made it clear it will not reverse the decision it announced on August 31 regarding the arrangements for the election of chief executive in 2017. While I appreciate the courage shown by the protesters, it is more important to maintain social order and uphold the rule of law. It would now be better for the activists to leave their protest sites.

This would be a win-win situation. It would ensure social order is maintained and the economy would recover.

An increasing number of people are turning against the Occupy movement, because of the inconvenience caused to their daily lives.

If the protesters leave, that animosity may evaporate and those same people would once again support those calling for genuine democracy.

He referred to the generation of Xi Jinping's father as one that had won control of China and would not expose the regime to unnecessary risk from Hong Kong's democratisation. Yet the late Xi Zhongxun was not necessarily typical of his generation. He was the exception rather than the rule.

As vice-premier, he was jailed by Mao Zedong in 1962 for 16 years on trumped-up charges. After his release, he braved the hardliners to spearhead reforms in Guangdong.

He faced the problem of thousands of people who wanted to leave the mainland for Hong Kong by all means possible. Rather than viewing the problem simplistically as a struggle between socialism and capitalism, as many cadres did, Xi handled the issue with understanding and flexibility.

He also saw economic growth as the ultimate solution to mass desertion and laid the foundations for development of the entire region.

He stood by Hu Yaobang when the latter was under attack by conservative elders. After Hu was deposed as general secretary in 1987, he had to undergo the crude and cruel criticism and self-criticism sessions at the highest level of the party. He came out of one such session, sat in front of the Great Hall of the People, and started weeping. It was Xi senior who helped him up.

In short, Xi senior was the communist with a human face.

Xi Jinping has long surpassed his father in terms of his position in the party hierarchy, the power he has amassed, and the responsibility he has assumed together with the position and the power.

Many of us in Hong Kong and the mainland are still waiting to see if he is the worthy son of the venerable Xi Zhongxun.

There are things that all citizens can do to try and save our earth and reduce our effect on climate change.

People can buy locally-grown and produced food and eat less beef. Citizens owning cars should arrange to car-share. People can save on water by taking showers instead of running baths. Also, we all need to recycle waste where possible and try to buy products with a minimum of packaging.

Everyone can play a part in protecting the environment, given that human activities such as burning coal and deforestation produce greenhouse gases.

The debate over government proposals to expand the city's three landfills and build an incinerator is proving controversial.

I am against enlarging the landfills, but back the proposed incinerator.

Expansion of landfills is a bad idea, because it is not a long-term way of dealing with Hong Kong's problem with refuse disposal.

If the sites are extended and then reach capacity, presumably we will then find the government proposing yet another extension and this creates a vicious circle.

However, with an incinerator, volumes of refuse can be reduced over time and this can help solve the problems we face with waste disposal.

If we want to see a significant reduction in these volumes, we have to back the building of this plant.

Many of those opposed to the project argue that it would cause air pollution, emitting toxic gases.

The government has said this will not be a problem, but it has not been very persuasive in putting forward its case.

When defending the incinerator, the government has to do more to educate the public and produce advertisements explaining the advantages of having an incinerator.

Officials also have to get the message across that it can also generate energy and therefore it should be seen as blessing and not a curse.

I think that if citizens can understand the advantages of having an incinerator, there will be less opposition and the administration will be able to go ahead with the project.

Victor Sum, Tseung Kwan O

I am concerned about the overuse of plastic bags.

Mountains of plastic bags are dumped into Hong Kong's landfills every day. This is a problem that we need to deal with, because it is serious.

It would be a good idea to extend the present 50-cent charge for a plastic bag at retail chains. The government should impose a HK$1 tax on all plastic bags.

The present levy is too low and is not having the desired effect, which is to get consumers to purchase fewer plastic bags.

More must be done to encourage shoppers to bring their own bags. Also, at weekends, supermarkets should only have reusable bags available and not plastic bags.

People need to be made aware of the number of plastic bags used every day in Hong Kong and how many end up in our landfills.

This would help them to appreciate how much they are wasting and persuade them to try to use fewer plastic bags.