The administration will also do more for the elderly. It will increase the value of care vouchers given to the elderly, which will help older people who are poor. Also, with an increased quota of residential care home places for the elderly, more pensioners who are struggling to get by while living alone will find a place.

I also welcome the decision to subsidise needy students attending mainland universities.

It is important that young people wishing to study at tertiary institutions should not have to worry about being able to meet their expenses.

Some critics of the policy address said it focused on helping people on low incomes, but ignored the needs of middle-class citizens.

I think the reason the administration focused on helping the poor is that it wants to address the issue of the extreme disparity between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong.

However, I think the government may need to develop and provide a better economic environment in order to improve living standards.

I think that overall the policy address can really meet most of the needs of citizens. However, a considerable sum is being spent and the government must consider the financial burden, since the implementation of some of these policies will be expensive.

In the long term this could impose a heavy burden on taxpayers.

I am surprised that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying did not revisit the issue of the minimum wage in his policy address.

Low wages are the main cause of inequality and poverty here and in most of the world.

Hong Kong's minimum wage of HK$30 an hour is sub-poverty. Who can live on that? One day, taxpayers will realise that the social programmes they pay for are subsidies for businesses that refuse to pay a living wage.

As US president Harry S. Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Many of Hong Kong's poor who work do not have the skills or educational level to get better-paid jobs.

Often, they are unable to get public housing and have to live in subdivided units.

In his policy address, the chief executive referred to the help provided by the Community Care Fund.

It can offer assistance to those who are not entitled to welfare payments such as Comprehensive Social Security Assistance.

However, some people are reluctant to apply to this fund and the sums are relatively small and not sufficient to bring real changes in these people's lives. Also, the money offered by the fund is, in effect, a one-off measure.

To make long-term improvements to the lives of these people, the government will have to recognise the need to provide more subsidised housing so these people can be helped directly and enjoy a much better living environment.

Their children also need more help with their education, such as subsidies for exchange programmes.

I refer to the report ("Two men arrested in gang-rape of tourist", January 16).

I would like to point out to all your readers that it is a fallacy to declare India as a dangerous place for women. It is just not true. I am a regular traveller to my motherland, as well as to Africa, Europe and the United States.

India, just like other countries, has cities and towns which are safe, and some others which are not that safe.

New Delhi has a far higher crime rate than other cities in the country.

In the US, Saginaw (Michigan), Anchorage and Fairbanks (Alaska), Springfield (Illinois) and Redding (California) have high rates of rapes that are just not comparable to any city in India.

In my hometown, Mumbai, anyone, including women, can freely travel even downtown and on public buses and trains without a problem. In fact, Mumbai's downtown area is even safe at night, whereas in New York city, I have been advised not to move about certain areas at night.

In Los Angeles, some areas are not even safe during the day. So you have to take precautions in New York or Los Angeles and the same applies to New Delhi.

A very large community of foreigners lives in Goa, in Rishikesh, in the south. By and large, they do not experience any safety problems.

I am not trying to claim that India is some sort of paradise for women or that there is no crime. But then which country can claim to be crime-free? Even in relatively safe nations such as Norway and New Zealand, you read about brutal attacks.

However, India is surely not like South Africa where, according to one newspaper report, there are 1.4 million rapes annually.

Also, according to a Reuters report, in the US one in 10 teenagers and young adults has admitted to having coerced or forced someone into sexual behaviour.

I refer to the report ("Two men arrested in gang-rape of tourist", January 16).

I agree that there has been a rise in the number of rape cases happening in India, but it is not the only country where this has happened.

Press reports on rapes in other nations, such as China, tend to be shorter than when India is being covered. When there is a case in India, it tends to get more extensive coverage.

Terry Miller's message, as managing editor of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, is that "higher levels of economic freedom lead to higher levels of prosperity that raise living standards for all" ("Economic freedom leads to prosperity", January 18).

I agree that economic freedom is generally advantageous, but this does not necessarily lead to higher living standards for all.

In Hong Kong's case unfettered capitalism is creating great wealth. However, this is progressively concentrated into a few hands.

General wage levels have stagnated over the last decade and poverty has become alarmingly widespread.

This has led to the local derogatory term "tycoon hegemony". A high economic freedom score does not always equate to good living standards.

It's worth noting that top-ranked Hong Kong and Singapore rate only 64 and 30 respectively in the World Happiness Report 2013.

However, I acknowledge that economic freedom and happiness can be achieved as Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and Denmark make the "top 10" in both indexes.

It is noteworthy that income disparity and the wealth gap are not pronounced in these countries, taxes are higher, and their societies are much more equitable (when compared to Hong Kong and Singapore).

The allegations about an Indonesian domestic helper being subjected to physical violence have raised public concerns about the well-being and rights of helpers in Hong Kong.

It is a shame when you read about something like this happening.

It suggests that not enough is being done to protect these migrant workers. There does not appear to be sufficient legal protection to ensure their basic rights are respected.

Many have to endure a poor living environment, such as having to sleep on bathroom or kitchen floors. The government needs to do more to protect them.

If the decision is made to bring in new laws to ensure these workers are given sufficient protection, there must be a public consultation process first.

The migrant workers should also be approached where they meet on their days off to gauge their views. An effective law takes account of the views of different stakeholders.

Foreign domestic helpers contribute to the development of Hong Kong. Therefore, the government must ensure they are offered sufficient protection against abusive employers.