Denials of party links ring hollow I refer to your report 'Students hit back at communist label', December 2. For the members of both the Young Pioneers (YP) and Communist Youth League (CYL) to brazenly state that they are unaffiliated with the Communist Party and are offended that such a link could be construed is highly disingenuous, if not an outright lie. Upon simply looking at the pledge of the Young Pioneer movement, it is immediately apparent that this is a politically motivated organisation ('I love the Communist Party of China, the motherland and the people ... contributing my effort to the cause of communism'). As you say in your report, a major point of contention between the Hong Kong students and the YP/CYL-affiliated ones was the denunciation of the June 4 massacre: Hong Kong students are fully aware of the actions of the central government on that day in 1989 and know that it was an atrocity. The YP/CYL students are not even sure the June 4 crackdown occurred. There is nothing wrong in the fact that the mainland students belong to these organisations. However, they cannot be offended by local students pointing out this association with the YP movement in an election situation. The fact that they are offended highlights that this organisation is not the apolitical school group that they may wish it to be viewed as and serves to illustrate the differences between the youth of the mainland and Hong Kong. The Hong Kong students were perfectly within the bounds of correct action when they chose to highlight the links that the Young Pioneers and Communist Youth League students have with their organisations to allow the electorate to make a more informed choice when voting for their candidates. M. Lamb, Stanley Much can be done to ease rural poverty China has sharply raised its official rural poverty line to about US$1 a day ('Beijing doubles threshold for rural poverty', November 30). This means that 128 million citizens in rural areas are now officially poor, including 100 million people newly classified as such. China has created a miracle in its booming economy with its policy of reform and opening up since 1978. Three decades of buoyant economic growth have improved living standards overall and helped China rise towards middle-income status. The revised poverty line can more accurately reflect China's present situation. However, some social and economic problems have arisen during this period. There is a major imbalance in development between inner and coastal cities, between eastern and western China, and between cities and rural areas, resulting in a growing wealth gap between residents. It is certainly good news that the mainland is rising to middle-income status, but these problems cannot be neglected. There are several things the authorities can do. Besides offering government assistance, the government could also create job opportunities, subsidise industries in rural areas and build more infrastructure in the countryside. On top of that, it could also provide subsidies for crops, so farmers can lower their prices and boost their competitiveness, and break the urban-rural divide, so as to alleviate the economic differences throughout the country. Raymond Tse Ka-wai, Sham Shui Po Questions on incinerator unanswered It is astonishing that the Advisory Council on the Environment can approve the ill-conceived plan by the Environmental Protection Department for a super-incinerator off Lantau Island ('Incinerator project gets green light a second time', December 6). This is not just because the plan is risible and the department hasn't divulged the cost to the Hong Kong public - but because the council asked all the right questions at its meeting and got no satisfactory answers from the department. Council members asked salient questions about alternative technology, the impact on the pristine environment and why the new plan offered only very minor, cosmetic changes to the original. The department's responses were worse than inadequate. As with their farcical 'public consultations', they cannot justify their plans with scientific, technological, financial or environmental sense. Yet even after what this newspaper calls 'fresh scrutiny' by the council, its members still approved the plan. With advisers and environmental protectors like these, who needs destroyers? Hong Kong can look forward to yet more pollution, worsening air quality, the destruction of pristine marine and green areas and the creation of a vast concrete eyesore. All this is brought to us at a financial cost so large that our own government won't tell its taxpayers how much until after the project is pushed through. Julia Brown, Lantau Electric cars only cure for city pollution Many argue that hybrid vehicles and electric cars have still not proven their business case. But in an era of high energy costs and global warming, the central government is right to take the lead by insisting on the use of such cars over conventional vehicles. Without massive conversion to hybrid cars, there is no chance of reducing air pollution in China's ever growing urban centres. Anthony Lee, St Lucia, Queensland Standing up to Beijing not patriotism I refer to the letter from A.L. Nanik ('We should thank pan-democrats for standing up to regime in Beijing', November 30), which reads better than a promotional leaflet for the pan-democrats. The people of Hong Kong do not need to be told who is 'selfless' and 'courageous'. They can work it out themselves and vote accordingly. They recently voted in the district council elections and convincingly rejected the democrats, owing to their in-fighting, factional disputes, bad leadership and lack of ideas. Mr Nanik believes anyone who shows the finger to the mainland is a Hong Kong patriot and deserves support. Not true, Mr Nanik. Patriots are those who acknowledge the city's unique place within China and who can formulate plans and ideas to allow Hong Kong to move forward. George Vasilopoulos, Tsuen Wan Bad air truly a matter of life and death In the two years since the government finished the review of its air quality objectives, nothing has been done about it. The government doesn't seem to realise the health threats of Hong Kong's poor air quality. While doctors cannot say on a death certificate that a person was 'killed by air pollutants', it is well known among health professionals that air pollution is highly associated with fatal diseases. Studies have shown that people in polluted areas develop respiratory symptoms more readily and people who are exposed to air pollutants for a long time die sooner than those who are not. So how bad is the air in Hong Kong? It is not unusual for members of the public to think that air quality is of minimal significance and to consider that our present levels are normal and acceptable. This is not true. The air quality objectives have not been updated since 1987, and yet it is this standard that the government uses to assess the extent of air pollution, monitor projects and approve new ones. The outdated standards are extremely lax compared with the World Health Organisation's air quality guidelines. Do we not deserve better air to breathe? It is time for the government to face the challenge. No more vague emission control proposals, no more uncertain time frames, no more excuses for negligence. We can all make a difference by expressing our concerns and urging the government to take action promptly. We all deserve a breath of fresh air. Wincy Ng Wing-sze, Pok Fu Lam
