To give affected domestic owner occupiers an additional option to cash compensation, the URA introduced the flat-for-flat scheme following the promulgation of the government urban renewal strategy in 2011. The scheme offers domestic owner occupiers an opportunity to buy a replacement flat in situ after redevelopment, should they wish to stay in the neighbourhood, or in the Kai Tak flat-for-flat project at a pre-determined price at the time when they are offered cash compensation for their old flats.

The URA also takes care of the tenants affected by its redevelopment projects.

Eligible tenants can either opt for rehousing in public rental units in urban areas or cash compensation.

The URA also strives to help tenants who do not meet the normal eligibility criteria on compassionate grounds.

I can't help thinking that our community in Hong Kong operates on double standards when it comes to our reaction towards how certain people behave in our public spaces, namely the streets.

I, too, am concerned with the mass influx of tourists visiting our city within the context of its carrying capacity, and clearly there is evidence that we are exceeding it.

I agree with Michael Chugani ("The real stink", May 3) that the "peeing toddler" and the public reaction is a symptom of a much larger problem; the lack of government foresight in strategic tourism management.

At the same time though, I see our streets being used as a trash tip by our local drinkers, which was evident on May 1, at 8am (the morning after) at the corners of Fenwick Street and Lockhart Road.

I was appalled to see heaps of broken bottles, boxes and other litter strewn along the pavements and was thinking this is a lovely sight to see and experience for those who live in this area and for any visitor.

Who is to blame here? The patrons? Yes. The bar owners? Yes. The government department which has oversight on street littering? Yes.

Shame on all who feel that a certain level of alcohol (and profit) excuses them from being civilised and responsible within our public spaces - who is the true "locust" in the city?

Your editorial ("Relax ban on mainland mums", May 2) is without merit.

You conclude that the government should consider relaxing the ban on allowing mainland wives of Hong Kong men to give birth here.

The Hospital Authority indicated that maternity wards in Hong Kong's public hospitals can handle an extra 2,000 to 3,000 births a year.

Can this logically lead to the conclusion that the restriction on mainland women should be eased?

If there is spare capacity in obstetrics services, why should we put a strain on the medical staff in obstetrics wards by inviting an influx of mainland women giving birth here to stress the capacity of the services to the limit?

Why can't the spare capacity be used to provide a better staff-to-patient ratio and better services to Hong Kong women?

A. Tam's letter ("Colonial flag waving reflects dissatisfaction with government", April 27), was seriously flawed, and therefore misleading.

When saying that "more and more Asian male 'domestic helpers' can be seen sitting behind the wheels of seven-seater vehicles" your correspondent presumably meant "South Asian male".

Both Tam and I count as Asians and so surely Tam can't mean our ethnic group, the Chinese, shouldn't be driving those seven-seater vehicles? But what's wrong with even South Asians driving them?

They could be the ethnic-minority locals who Hong Kong has been trying hard - harder after, than before, 1997 - to avoid discriminating against when it comes to employment opportunities.

Even if they are not locals, they could be contract employees (a helpful but problematic scheme introduced by the pre-1997 administration) who are contracted to do the driving.

It is no more difficult for law-enforcers to enforce the law, and there are no more signs of them turning a blind eye to law-breaking, now than before 1997. But above all, your correspondent failed to notice the Chinese characters written on some of the colonial flags and on the placards saying "We are not Chinese people, we are Hong Kong people", meaning they don't view Hong Kong as part of China.

A former director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office saw the need to address this issue through the columns of the to tell the colonial flag wavers to emigrate if they don't like being Chinese in China.

No way will Hong Kong be thus press-ganged into becoming independent and not part of China. No, they didn't just wave the colonial flags to show dissatisfaction with the performance [of the authorities].

They are part of the mis-guided lot whose conspiracy is to get the Beijing-blessed administration to come unstuck, whether it is led by Tung Chee-hwa, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen or the present chief executive, Leung Chun-ying.

They admitted as much at one City Forum debate. They should be booted out.

Digressing a bit, how can such people be allowed a free choice of candidates in the 2017 election for chief executive?

The attack in March at a railway station in Kunming, which led to 29 people being killed, was an unforgivable crime.

It is a tactic employed by terrorists to attack civilians and strike fear in a community.

Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice, but we should not ignore their motives. The central government is known for its high-handed policies towards Tibet and Xinjiang , controlling the people by force but not benevolence. This has led to growing anger.

Beijing fears losing such regions, but it will not achieve the result of preserving unity through fear.

It can only reach a solution to the problems it faces in those parts of the country through a show of mutual respect rather than a show of revenge.

You win over hearts and minds by showing respect.