Journalists just trying to do their jobs Greater freedom of speech should go hand in hand with the modernisation process in a country. However, the incidents in Xinjiang show this kind of change is not happening on the mainland ('Parties unite over beating of journalists', September 10). As a student of journalism, I was disappointed by the action taken against the three Hong Kong journalists in Urumqi . These journalists were simply doing their job of finding out what was happening and reporting on it. What happened to them is something that reporters experience in other parts of the world. On the mainland the media has to try and be positive with its stories. In Hong Kong, journalists are taught to pursue open and transparent reporting. There are two different cultures at work here. The kind of censorship operating on the mainland is blocking genuine freedom of speech. I understand that for the leadership in Beijing, the priority is to have a stable and peaceful society. But the government must pay more attention to the importance of respecting freedom of speech. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the People's Republic of China. We should all be proud of this and use it to call for a country that can be modernised and move towards liberal values and equality. Wong Wing-yu, Mong Kok Not surprised by response The Hong Kong reporters attacked by police in Urumqi were accused of 'inciting protesters' ('Parties unite over beating of journalists', September 10). The journalists deny these accusations, but I can understand why the authorities would feel that way given my experiences with another communist regime. I travelled with a tour group to North Korea last year. We were kept isolated throughout the whole itinerary. We were not given any opportunity to interact with the North Korean public. The only breakthrough came when arrangements were made to have lunch in a public park near Pyongyang. However, our appearance in the park attracted the attention of North Koreans. Some of them stopped what they were doing and watched us. They were obviously curious about us. A few people became enthusiastic and allowed us to take photos with them. However, as a result of this, we were immediately removed from the park. We did not even have time to open our lunchboxes. Also, when we left the country at the border control point, the digital pictures in our cameras of the people in the park were deleted. The point I am trying to make is that the terms 'inciting disturbance' and 'stirring unrest' can have different meanings in different countries. Lawrence Tang Siu-kiu, Tseung Kwan O No easy fix to our problems The report spilling the dirt on solar panels ('Dirty reality behind solar power', September 10) left me unsure if the economics are correct. Assuming that they are, then what the story so stridently omitted was a clear message that the solution to our energy-global warming/pollution dilemma lies elsewhere than simply continuing to grow energy demand. Demand-side constraints are shunned by governments reflecting corporate fears that this necessitates limiting economic and population growth, and hence profit growth. Yet this is inevitable sooner or later, but will be more effective and cheaper if done sooner than later. The cruel reality is that there is no easy fix to the problems we face. Governments must bite the bullet and urgently begin constraining energy demand, not through so-called market mechanisms such as cap and trade, but by more direct measures like mandating stricter close-to-zero energy balance buildings using low carbon-footprint materials and 'smart' energy management. Hong Kong's uninsulated energy-transparent concrete buildings happily run air-conditioning into the open streets resulting in tremendous energy wastage. That this remains legal is an environmental crime. We promote high-energy private vehicles but constrain small locally-designed and manufactured electric cars and fail to demand capital investment in lower-energy public transport systems, something we should have been doing a decade ago. I fear it is now too late. The SAR government will leave a damning historical legacy. Richard Fielding, school of public health, University of Hong Kong Blame Bush for this mess Mark Peaker should not get so upset about US President Barack Obama's personal spending ('Obama should tighten own belt', September 11). And he certainly should not lose his sense of humour when it comes to the oddity that, despite their theoretical commitment to fiscal rectitude, Republicans continually throw financial caution to the winds when in office. Bill Clinton bequeathed George W. Bush an economy in surplus, which patrimony Mr Bush proceeded to squander. The current US budget deficit results primarily from three things - Mr Bush's reckless tax cuts; a trillion dollar war of choice in Iraq, and the blind confidence of Bush acolytes that financial markets are self regulating which compelled a trillion-dollar bank bail-out by the new administration. What Mr Obama's personal spending (and he seems generally modest in his personal habits) has to do with Republican fiscal madness, I do not know, but one would surely laugh at Mr Peaker's self-deception, if the consequences of George W. Bush's overall fiscal irresponsibility (which seems generally consistent with his personal irresponsibility) were not so serious. Paul Serfaty, Mid-Levels Revised scheme ineffective I do not support the revisions to the drug test pilot scheme in schools. I think now that police are no longer involved, the scheme will not be as effective. Under the old scheme, police would have been informed if a student tested positive. Given that I do not think the scheme will be effective in efforts to curb drug use among young people, it seems to me to be a waste of resources. A very small proportion of pupils is likely to test positive. Again this appears to be very wasteful. Given the state of our economy, I am opposed to any waste of resources. If the revised scheme does not appear to be workable then I think it would be better to abandon it. I felt that the original plan was far better. Angus So, Ho Man Tin Following the Basic Law The Basic Law states that ultimately Hong Kong will get universal suffrage. The question is when. So isn't it somewhat ironic that those who want universal suffrage slightly quicker than a snail's pace are categorised as 'radical', 'anti-patriotic' and ultimately undermining democracy? Only in Hong Kong. Jennifer Eagleton, Tai Po
