What can be done about the problem of waste? It was heartening to see the letter from Mark Chan (Talkback, September 21) and I agree with his comments. The political ineptitude and lack of modern thinking and solutions to problems in Hong Kong is shocking. This is a modern and rich society. We are way behind others when it comes to public issues such as electric cars and management of waste, public space, the environment, the arts, the waterfront, air pollution and carbon tax. Many innovative, simple and necessary solutions exist. Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and the European Union are working on such solutions to curb waste generation. Encouraging and even insisting that the public reduces its waste is not something to be debated, but is imperative. There are solutions such as charging households for the volume of rubbish, encouraging recycling, subsidising the recycling industry and regulating manufacturers so they are responsible for the recyclability of their products. Creative and simple solutions exist. Why won't the public pay a little more to ensure care for the environment? We all end up paying in the end, via health issues or massive reduction in quality of life. Hong Kong is fast gaining a reputation of being the most expensive place to lose your health. What are the qualifications of our elected officials? I am involved in a committee that is trying to stop the unregulated and insensitive destruction of our natural environment by the construction of unnecessary railings on our walking trails. I and my fellow committee members find the same political lethargy with issues of Hong Kong's natural environment. Simple examples exist all over the world, but unqualified politicians take decisions in their misguided quest for public care. If the government can take its eyes off the property and finance sectors and focus on the public's quality of life, it might find that there are productive and simple problems to solve. Solving them could have a huge and positive impact on all Hongkongers, not just the government's favoured sectors. Deepak Madnani, Mid-Levels Should the Central Market building be preserved? The Central Market building has long been abused through a lack of respect and maintenance by the government as it tried to sell it for commercial development. Most people walk by, or through it, and probably see no reason why it should be kept. It has survived intentional neglect, but there is now a chance that its importance can be properly recognised with the Antiquities Advisory Board reviewing its heritage grading. If you look carefully at the building, you might be able to appreciate the simple elegance of its design and the functionality that is part of the Bauhaus tradition that it represents. It is our last substantial public building of this type of architecture and is therefore unique. It is also in good structural condition and suitable for sensitive refurbishment and continued use for many years. It should be used again as a market, with clothing and other stalls similar to the nearby Central lanes. The upper level could be converted to simple indoor/outdoor eating venues for people in Central looking for a reasonably priced and simple lunch. It could be a place for regular Hongkongers. It should be retained and revitalised, but it should not be turned into something that it never has been. It should not be an extension to a high-value shopping mall or a venue for exclusive dining. With care it could become the missing focal point in Central. Ian Brownlee, Happy Valley How can people be encouraged to cut car use? It was good to see officials participating in the city's first Car-Free Day on Tuesday. They acted as role models and set an example for all Hongkongers. In the long term to encourage people to cut car use the government must promote the use of bicycles. To this end more cycle paths are needed. The cycle paths in Sha Tin are well-designed. But in other districts, there is room for improvement. Moreover, our government and green groups must do more to promote the use of public transport. Public transport services in our city are satisfactory. More than 90 per cent of Hongkongers use public transport on a regular basis. Cutting car use is not easy, but we should try our best to do it. The Car-Free Day was a good start. Charlie Chan Wing-tai, Sha Tin Should the South Island Line be put underground? Railways are a major form of public transport because they help commuters to avoid the inevitable traffic jams. Most importantly, if we have more railways in the city, this will lead to there being fewer vehicles on our roads and there will be less pollution. The MTR Corporation's South Island Line will be very good news for residents in the southern area of Hong Kong Island, but it is not without controversy. The MTR Corp plans to construct a viaduct on the line. However, concerns have been raised about this viaduct and the problems it will cause for the neighbourhood where it is located ('Holy men join growing row over MTR viaduct', September 21). Among the people who will be affected are residents of a rehabilitation centre at Wong Chuk Hang and other premises alongside the planned route, including a seminary. Concerned parties have asked that instead of a viaduct, the line should go underground. It has been argued that such an option would lead to increased costs and it might take longer to complete the line. I would suggest that if the MTR Corp does not consider the underground option to be feasible, it should see if it is possible to adjust the route, rather than build the viaduct above the nullah. R. Hau, Kowloon Bay Do you think speed cameras are needed on steep roads? We keep reading newspaper reports of road traffic accidents. But despite the warnings, people continue to drive at high speeds. Therefore, I think speed cameras are needed on our roads, including steep roads. Some motorists as they approach a bend will not reduce their speed in spite of the potential risks. These cameras can act as a deterrent. If drivers know they are there they will likely slow down. Li Tsz-chun, Tsuen Wan
