Christopher Cheng, a former member of the Town Planning Board, noted in his article on the harbour (May 24), that while the government won the lawsuit over the Central reclamation, it lost the hearts of the people. He lamented that the government machinery failed to defend the allegation that the purpose of the reclamation was to create land for commercial development. Not only has Mr Cheng not done better than the government, in defending it he has further muddied the waters and put the credibility of the reclamation back into public focus. He wrote: 'It is inconceivable for anyone to suggest that providing millions of square feet of floor space for commercial development will aggravate the traffic problem'. That is precisely the problem. The government is indeed planning to increase the density of development substantially in an already highly developed area. If this is not so, it will not need to build so many roads on the harbourfront, which will allow for the Central reclamation to be reduced. The official figure that Mr Cheng was given - that there will only be a total of 1.6 million sq ft of additional commercial space - is an enormous amount of new development. Why Mr Cheng thinks it is nothing to worry about is mystifying. The Ratings and Valuation Department can attest to the fact that average Grade A office completions in the whole of Hong Kong Island, from 1999 to the end of 2003, were about 1 million square feet per annum. The provision of 1.6 million sq ft would be about 8 per cent of the entire stock of Grade A space in Central and Western, and that is not taking into account developments expected on the Tamar site. If that were to be added, these two sites will add 15 per cent more Grade A space in the area. Mr Cheng also overlooked the official forecast of 1,200 vehicle trips per hour during peak periods arising from proposed commercial developments on an area of about 5.1 hectares on the Central reclamation. In Letters on May 25, Timothy Li on behalf of the Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau said there was no need to fear Victoria Harbour would be turned into a river. Nowhere did he explain that the size of the harbour has already been reduced by half from its original size. The observation that 'ferries will continue to sail' is not a justification for the considerable narrowing of the harbour as a result of reclamation. The Society for Protection of the Harbour continues to call upon the government to reduce the size of the Central reclamation. By capping density at the current level, there will not be a need for the 13-lanes road system the government is planning. CHRISTINE LOH, Society for Protection of the Harbour Merger questions I refer to the article 'Business faculties could join forces' (May 26). The University of Hong Kong vice-chancellor hailed the plan to establish a world class institution as a winner for all. I only partly agree. Because of the fiscal deficit, the government proposes cutting its spending on universities. If a new joint institution is set up, part of the expenditure will be allocated to it, and other universities will get less. This will lead to more student protests. If the new institution is set up, will the business faculties of the University of Science and Technology and HKU be closed? If 'no', will students give up study in the new school? I think not. No one wants to study in a less professional place. But if the answer is 'yes', it is unfair to past graduates. However, the new school would improve Hong Kong's reputation. This would be the first place in Asia to have such an institution. But the plan should be considered to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs. CHAN KONG, Tsuen Wan Two sides of Singapore Linus Wee (May 24) says Singapore is a democracy that has seen many general elections since 1965. He says that Singaporeans have chosen their path and that some of us are just taking a swipe at Singapore. It is not Singaporeans who have chosen their path, but Lee Kuan Yew. He set the right path and Singaporeans are where they are mainly because of him and his strong rule. But I cannot agree that Singapore has free elections. I recall certain districts being told that if they voted in the opposition they would receive less government money. Some might call this blackmail or bribery. Another correspondent said Singaporeans could complain to their MP, who could raise a matter in a meeting. It sounds nice, but if you are in the opposition and make too much noise, you are likely to find the government suing you till you are bankrupt and have to give up your parliamentary seat. Is Singapore a well-run country? Yes. Is Hong Kong totally free? No, it isn't, and we have some self-censorship. Is it a good place to live? Yes, a lot better than Singapore as we have more personal freedom. Is Hong Kong well run? Unfortunately not. We could use better management and I do not mind how we get it. JEFFRY KUPERUS, Clear Water Bay Growing 3G community An early user of 3G, I think the new technology has not been given the credit it deserves. My husband and I love trendy, hi-tech stuff, so we subscribed to Hutchison's 3G service when it was launched in Hong Kong at the start of the year. After initial small glitches, the service has improved in leaps and bounds. I am now glued to it and never want to switch back to 2G. The video-calling service contributes a lot to the family relationship. My kids, as well, are heavy users. 3G brings them and me closer, even though I sometimes work overtime. It is quite a rare treat that customers are given a free software upgrade. While there is definitely room for the service to improve, a 3G community is gradually taking place. NAOMI LAM, Kowloon Tong A need for tolerance Why publish rants from people who are prejudiced against, or have had enough of, the Chinese majority or other ethnic groups in Hong Kong? The letter 'People make the place' (May 22) reads as if the correspondent believes most people in Hong Kong have unhygienic habits in public, cannot behave in restaurants, and that visitors from the mainland are even worse. You earlier published other unhelpful generalisations. Most people realise that we just have to get along in this international city. JEAN-FRANCOIS TREMBLAY, Mid-Levels Colonial appeal? A survey by a credit card firm has warned against over-dependence on mainland tourists and suggested that Hong Kong preserve its colonial heritage if it is to maintain its attractiveness with non-Chinese ('HK still region's shopping nirvana for tourists', May 25). A former employee of the Tourism Board, I have greeted thousands of tourists at the airport. But I have never heard of one being interested in Hong Kong's colonial heritage. Western tourists want to visit Po Lin Monastery, Wong Tai Sin Temple, Cheung Chau's Bun Festival and dragon boat races, whereas Japanese and Koreans seem more interested in the avant-garde structures on Victoria Harbour, and Chinese restaurants. We have to accept that colonial days are gone, and Hong Kong is turning into a real Chinese city. Yet one thing will not change: this is an international city, where east meets west, which is also why we are a mecca for tourists. SAMSON YUEN, Yuen Long Maids deserve more I fully agree with the May 25 leader that foreign domestic workers' remuneration should be restored to its original level. In fact, it should be increased to $3,800 a month to help compensate them for the insult. I would also like to see a minimum wage for all workers. We are not a poor society but so many are being exploited. NAME, ADDRESS SUPPLIED
