Should Jackie Chan be granted land for his project? I think Jackie Chan should be granted land for his project as he is an excellent citizen who has brought honour to Hong Kong. Moreover, he has valued antique houses of the Ming and Qing dynasties and costumes and awards from his outstanding movies, and it is very important for Hong Kong to keep these treasures in a Jackie Chan museum. It would be a real scandal if these treasures were shipped to another country for display and storage. This would be Hong Kong's disgrace. It is essential that land is granted to Chan, and our government must treat this matter as urgent and act swiftly. Hong Kong will benefit from such a museum. Chan is an internationally recognised celebrity. A museum like this would become a major tourist attraction. This would generate a lot of revenue for the city, and this is something to bear in mind given the current serious economic downturn. A lot of visitors would come from the mainland, as many mainlanders love Hong Kong movie stars and already like to go to the Avenue of Stars in Tsim Sha Tsui to take photos and touch the handprints. Jackie Chan has been trying to get the co-operation of the Hong Kong administration for the past 10 years. It is only once in a blue moon that you will get an opportunity like this. If the Hong Kong government does not take advantage of this opportunity, the Singaporean government will. Our officials must not hesitate; they must act now. Gillian Leung Sze-pui, Wong Tai Sin I think both the Hong Kong government and Jackie Chan are at fault in this matter. Although the government has been slow to react (it has taken about 10 years), Chan should have put more pressure on the government to get it to come to a decision, rather than just waiting for an answer. He should have told the Hong Kong government that the Singaporean government was going to allow him to locate his antique houses there, giving Hong Kong officials an opportunity to make a swift response. The Hong Kong government must now try harder to ensure that these houses remain in the city. Janice Wong, Yau Ma Tei What should be done with the Seaview Building in Repulse Bay? I refer to the report 'Seaview Building could be saved' (March 2). I think the government can take Stanley's Wellcome supermarket as a reference point. The building housing the Wellcome store was once a police station. Wellcome did not destroy it and has done its best to ensure the original features of the building are protected. The Seaview Building is close to Repulse Bay beach and thousands of people go to the beach every week. Also, there are not many shops selling goods that are suitable for the public. Therefore, parts of the building could be rented out to supermarkets, convenience stores, snack bars and even shops selling water-sports equipment. It would be convenient for people to buy goods at these stores. What matters is that the building is revitalised and protected and that whoever undertakes the renovation process ensures the building's original features remain intact. Tenants and the public must ensure that the building is properly protected, because as more people use the building it could become vulnerable and get damaged. The government should also be responsible for making the necessary repairs. I hope to see some much better proposals being put forward for the Seaview Building. Cheng Cheuk-hei, Tsuen Wan On other matters ... A group of designers has proposed turning the former police quarters at Hollywood Road into shops ('Designers want former police quarters converted to shops', March 2). Their idea is to convert the building into 'retail shops to realise their dreams of selling their own brands'. In the name of conservation, we now suddenly have many monotonous and boring proposals, with the primary aim being to generate revenue. Most of the proposals put forward illustrate the need to undertake an in-depth analysis before deciding whether or not to demolish the existing buildings. Quite often a group putting forward a proposal is more concerned with its own interests and needs than with issues such as conservation. We have to ask whether the designers' proposal would be a suitable use for the former police quarters. There seems to be a new kind of industry in Hong Kong that seeks to take advantage of the public sentiment regarding preservation and the government's efforts to preserve buildings. This is why we need to set up a specialist architectural committee that can look at proposals and, where necessary, veto them. The main aims of any proposal should be conservation and preservation. The group's interests should be a secondary consideration. It does not help if people try to take advantage of a situation in the name of conservation. H. C. Bee, Kowloon Tong I think it is important that something is done to raise public awareness about a problem that exists in Hong Kong, whereby children are left at home alone by parents. This form of negligence is becoming an increasingly serious problem and yet little is being done to curb it. When there is a domestic tragedy and children die because they were left at home alone by parents, it is headline news for a few days and then it is forgotten again. There is no excuse for such negligence. Parents must always accept their responsibilities. Our government must do more to raise awareness of this problem. There must be more public education so that parents will realise that any negligence on their part could cost lives. If no action is taken, the problem will only get worse. Jason Chu Hung-shing, Lai Chi Kok
