Q Should ventilation measures be made compulsory for new developments? Sure. It's certainly a piece of good news for those who have respiratory diseases (including me). Since the appearance and designs of the compact streets in Hong Kong cannot be changed in a short time, imposing compulsory ventilation measures on new developments is the only way to really improve the condition of our city's air. I hope that after a few decades, I can breathe fresh air even standing in the heart on Mongkok. Claire Man, Diamond Hill Q Is it appropriate to name the medical faculty after Li Ka-shing? The naming of a university or a school within a university can be a controversial issue even in the United States. For example, all of the major schools at Harvard have no naming except for the Kennedy School of Government for obvious reasons. In the medical school arena, Cornell has the Weill Medical College and Graduate School of Medical Sciences, the UCLA School of Medicine is named after David Geffen and the University of Southern California has a Keck School of Medicine. Li Ka-shing and HKU aside, how would I feel if someone wanted to rename my Alma Mater, Harvard Medical School? I would have several questions: What are the achievements of this person? What are the visions of this person in medicine or biomedical sciences? What can the school achieve with this additional funding? Most people in Hong Kong do not know Mr Li except for the fact that he is a wealthy, successful businessman. Many (especially in the Chinese culture) see the wealthy using donations to further their power and legacy and nothing else. This cannot be further from what Mr Li represents. He has used his wealth to make a difference for many. I have seen it first hand when I visited several of his projects. The start of a modern university in Shantou on the mainland, despite all odds, will make a major contribution to the welfare of the Chinese for many years to come. He has made numerous donations to research in nasal pharyngeal cancer, hepatitis, ophthalmology, bird flu and public health policy at many universities around the world. As an alumnus of Harvard Medical School and a faculty of Stanford School of Medicine, I would be proud to have these schools named after Li Ka-shing. The debate should be how best they can spend the $1 billion to make HKU better, to catch up on the biomedical revolution, which requires enormous resources, rather than on the naming issue itself. Alan C. Yeung, Interventional Cardiology Professor of Medicine, Stanford University Medical Centre, USA On other matters... The particular brand of efficiency that the Highways Department subscribes to has never failed to leave me flabbergasted. I refer to the construction of the new Causeway Bay flyover, which has required radical rerouting of traffic. How can the construction of a flyover take two years? I'm not an engineer, but would it be so unreasonable to expect a project that causes such disruption to traffic to be completed as soon as possible? Two years seems farcical for a relatively small project. The website of the Western Harbour Crossing indicates that construction of the three-lane (six lanes when you consider both directions) tunnel took 47 months. While no precise construction time was provided for the Eastern Harbour Tunnel on its website, it does provide the month of the signing of the franchise, and the month of the official opening. Elapsed time: 37 months. There is a plethora of instances where it can be argued that the Highways Department (or its contractors) take their sweet time at the expense of the tax-paying public. The war-zone conditions that residents and users of Lockhart Road had to endure for years is a prime example. The Highways Department needs to pick up its game. While I don't dispute the need for a new flyover at the Causeway Bay waterfront, a 24-month wait is simply too long. Going on TV and saying 'Yes, we expect congestion' doesn't really tell us anything and far from covers its inadequacies and incompetence. Or perhaps I'm just confused. Is this Causeway Bay flyover actually the first phase of the Hong Kong-Macau-Zhuhai bridge? Cliff Leung, North Point I totally agree with Mary Melville's objections (Talkback, June 15) to the government proposal to relocate the Star Ferry concourse bus terminus to the Tsim Sha Tsui East harbour front. Tourism is not everything. The convenience of the local community in accessing public transport should have priority over questionable benefits of creating a small size 'open plaza' for the promotion of tourism. The long stretch of harbour front promenade along Cultural Centre and New World Centre has been serving tourists for years, and offers magnificent views of the harbour. The government wants to reclaim land on the Wan Chai-Causeway Bay waterfront to 'beautify' the Hong Kong Island northern coastline and make accessible a waterfront promenade to the public, then why are they wishing to move the Star Ferry bus concourse to occupy the TST East harbour front? Will the Tourism Commission balance the everyday necessity of local people against the often over-inflated importance of tourism to Hong Kong? Andrew Chan, Happy Valley