Editor,

I enjoyed reading Li Xing's article about excessive tourism spoiling historic charm.

Balancing the needs of visitors and residents at a tourism destination is a major challenge, especially if there is a desire to develop tourism in ways that are profitable and sustainable. There are limits to the capacity of any destination and ignoring them will ultimately lead to a gradual deterioration of the destination and a waning of its appeal. Once that starts to happen, you may also find that the number of visitors changes. This has further implications for the local economy and employment.

Successful tourism depends upon the industry and the community working together to decide how the destination should be planned, marketed and managed. Tourism is an important economic engine but, to be ultimately successful, it must be linked to the quality of life of local residents. That means issues relating to tourism's impact on the environment, culture, society and economy must be better understood and managed. The tourism industry is a key stakeholder, but it is only one of many stakeholders that have to be involved in destination planning.

The challenge will be to find ways to ensure that the wonderful experiences that attracted visitors in the first place will still exist when their children's children decide to come back.

Stephen Pearce, Canada

No worries for HK

Editor,

Aside from two years spent living in Shanghai, I have been a resident of Hong Kong for 13 years. I believe Hong Kong to be one of the greatest cities on earth and find it a terrible shame that so many of its citizens moan about the place "losing its edge." Just recently I wrote to a friend about this. Hence, James Leung's article really struck a chord with me.

If too many Hong Kongers believe they are marginalised, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that would be such a shame.

What a shame it is, too, that much of this reasoning, as he point out, is based on faulty analysis or irrelevant statistics. What's worse, it's often as if apples and oranges were being compared.

With regard to growth rates, yes, of course many cities in China are growing more quickly than Hong Kong, but that's irrelevant Hong Kong is a first-world economy and China's cities are still developing. That there is a difference is no great wonder.

Are there things that Hong Kong could do better? For sure. At the top of the list is stop worrying about "marginalisation" and start focusing on the essentials integration with the mainland, remaining a role model in terms of people and systems, investing in education and building a society that is creative and confident.

China is a fantastic country. Hong Kong can be the most fantastic place of this fantastic country.

Peter Schindler via email

A different view

Editor,

I read James Leung's "Little for Hong Kong to learn from Singapore" in the July 24 issue of China Daily.

First, I must make clear that I am writing the following comments not because I am a Singaporean. I reside in Shanghai and, honestly, three sections of your newspaper always have my best attention namely opinion, sports and Business Weekly.

Second, I am not acquainted with the author. Neither did I realise he was a native Hong Konger until I researched his profile before writing this email.

I fully understand James' article is based on his personal opinion, for which I have due respect.

However, don't you think it is rather odd to believe that the ban on chewing gum was due to a minister inadvertently picking up gum on the sole of his shoe?

Another point I find unfathomable is James' contention that "faithful to its long-cherished policy of positive non-intervention, the Hong Kong government limits its functions to providing basic services and maintaining law and order." Is this what a government should be? Or is it a case of "one country, two systems," which Mr Leung frequently mentioned in his opinion archive?

Normally, Mr Leung's style of journalism is refreshingly enlightening, especially his opinion on customer service in China. However, on this occasion, I disagree with his views.

Edmund Ho, Shanghai

(China Daily 08/04/2006 page4)