Hong Kong citizens enjoy freedom of speech and religion, the freedom to do anything as long as it does not break any of our laws.

During the more than 150 years of British occupation, Hong Kong did not have a say on who should be governor, however, those of us born here enjoyed the freedoms I have described since the day we were born. In other words, these freedoms are our birthright.

Having the rights to voice our opinions, including our political views, and to choose our religion is precious. People from various groups, for example, Occupy Central versus anti-Occupy, can freely debate their differences because we have a legal system that upholds freedom of speech.

Only through debates, checks and balances and adherence to a well-established rule of law can we improve, advance and progress for our common good.

Those who signed the petition should ask themselves if there is freedom of speech, of expression, or of religion on the mainland. Try standing in the middle of Tiananmen Square and criticising the Communist Party.

Think about what has happened to those mainland citizens who have defended human rights, including dissidents such as Liu Xiaobo , Liu Xia and Chen Guangcheng .

We want to be able to elect a chief executive who will protect the core value of freedom.

We must be wary of one elected from a pre-screened pool, for fear he will serve as Beijing's puppet.

Occupy Central is the only means of protest, due to the lack of opportunity, for proper representation.

The ongoing controversy over the issue of Occupy Central among Hong Kong people seems to have led to a polarisation of views.

Some people seem to think it comes down to this - either you are for the pan-democrats or against them.

Many young people who are in the former category are from the post-1980s or post-1990s generation.

It is good to see so many youngsters not being politically apathetic.

However, I am worried that some of them appear to be impulsive and give little thought to what actions they might take or the consequences of such actions.

Are some of the actions they adopt really furthering the cause of genuine democracy and universal suffrage in Hong Kong?

I believe that before they get involved in a particular protest, these young people should think carefully about it.

They should ask themselves if it is really helping the struggle for democracy in Hong Kong or vice versa.

I think the problems at the MTR stem from the bureaucracy and the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth" is appropriate.

The blame game over delays to MTR projects, especially the troubled HK$67 billion high-speed railway to Guangzhou, has been going on for months. The problems that the project was experiencing were no secret to top officials. However, they wanted to find an excuse and a fall guy.

Jay Walder is a very experienced CEO. He is shrewd and devoted to his job. He was the right choice as chief executive of the MTR. He must have felt frustrated by the set-up here with so many bosses.

He was here for a relatively short period of time. With the recent controversy and his early resignation, I am afraid that the good work he did has been completely overlooked.

He increased the speed of trains which improved frequency. The carriages were cleaner and slightly less overcrowded. He hired more staff to control crowds at busy stations. Had he stayed for his full tenure, we would probably have seen more toilets available at stations.

Some things were beyond his control, such as the large influx of mainland visitors.

In terms of future development, new lines are needed in key areas such as Tsuen Wan and Kwun Tong.

Also, the MTR Corp has to be more accountable to its shareholders. When there are problems, such as delays or increases in expenditure, it must provide fuller explanations.

A. L. Nanik, Tsim Sha Tsui

It is shocking that a mainland factory was repackaging out-of-date meat.

This latest scandal exposes the loopholes in the regulations governing food safety north of the border.

All relevant parties, including the authorities, must now work together to rectify this problem. Only in this way can they restore the damaged reputation of food producers on the mainland and ensure consumers are purchasing food that is safe to eat.

It is well known that proper supervision of these plants is inadequate. Companies know that they will not have to face frequent health and safety checks. Given the lack of vigilance, companies which are lax will continue to break the law with impunity.

The problem on the mainland with some firms is a lack of morals. Ethical companies would rather lose money than sell products that might be tainted. The unethical mainland firms care nothing about the welfare of customers and are only concerned with making profits.

This is an issue which must be taken seriously by the central government.

I can understand the concerns of the International Monetary Fund regarding Hong Kong's de facto central bank and agree that the ordinance should be amended.

The fact that the chief executive has the power to overrule decisions made by the HKMA is a reflection of his role as the person who formulates monetary and financial policy in Hong Kong. But if we have a chief executive with a flawed financial programme or someone who abuses his power, this control he has over the HKMA could pose a risk to the local economy.

Either this section of the ordinance should be withdrawn or, at the very least, clarified to ensure the independence of the HKMA.

Your article also referred to another IMF report on Hong Kong's banks facing greater exposure to mainland borrowers. If there was a sharp slowdown in growth on the mainland, the financial sector here could face a severe problem. Some of these borrowers would struggle to replay their loans and this could trigger an economic crisis in Hong Kong.

While some analysts say there is no threat if China's economy continues to grow rapidly, however, I think there is cause for concern. The city's banks do expose themselves to greater risks when they give money to mainland borrowers rather than lending to Hong Kong companies.

While many have called for reductions in the volumes of waste generated in Hong Kong, others have backed government proposals to expand landfills and build an incinerator.

I think that all these suggestions have merit. The government does not have to choose a single solution. An incinerator would be a better option than expanding landfills. It can deal with enormous quantities of waste, the technology is sufficiently advanced to reduce emissions and it can generate energy.

What is really needed is for Hongkongers to change their daily habits.

If they were more conscious of the waste generated and made efforts to reduce it, waste volumes would drop.

However, it will be a long time before there is this change in mindset and until then large amounts of refuse will be dumped into our landfills every day.