appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

liveArticle

appConfig

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sectionsV2

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

json

SCMP Reporter

Q Should there be more quiet cars on KCR trains?

As a daily commuter, I have, until recently, regarded the KCR as having one of the highest standards of transport professionalism in the world.

The KCR has now departed from that standard by  imposing 'noise pollution'   on passengers.

The noise  comes from the  indiscriminate broadcast of news and commercials in most of the train compartments, including the first-class compartment.

Observations reveal that many passengers like to rest or read while travelling via KCR, but  now they  are subjected to the constant noise from the broadcasts.

The train compartments are generally crowded, especially during the rush hours; it is difficult for passengers to move to the few 'quiet cars' or the tiny 'quiet section' in the first-class compartment.

The noise is disturbing to the tranquillity of most passengers, subjecting their health and well-being to hazardous conditions.

Companies trying to profit by generating 'noise pollution'  are an example of questionable business ethics.

Eden Yu, Tai Po

I am very disappointed to learn that the KCRC has introduced TV sets with noise in their train coaches.

It was already very annoying  to have all sorts of announcements in Cantonese, English and Putonghua squeezed in on every short trip between two stations. The way  Mongkok is announced in Putonghua  could not be more deafening.

Now, the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation is taking every  opportunity to squeeze in as much noise as possible between the deafening announcements so as to make sure every commuter's ears will have absolutely no rest.

Thanks to the announcements, the sounds of the TV are suppressed and interrupted frequently; this doubles the nuisance.

The additional noise received when the train passes through a tunnel worsens the situation. And the noisier the coach, the louder the voices the commuters use to chat. All this noise makes riding on KCRC trains stressful.

I have heard that the KCRC is an environmentally conscious organisation.

Perhaps they are not so conscious about noise pollution or perhaps they are just conscious about the noises emitted by running trains that affect people near the rail tracks, but not the noises generated within the coaches; otherwise they would not let their customers be tortured inside a confined train compartment.

The concept of having just two 'quiet cars' for each 12-car train is also questionable.

Has KCRC assumed that commuters who treasure silence belong to a group of people who are ready to sacrifice their time by moving to the 'quiet cars'?   Are they willing to miss a train to ensure they get a seat in a quieter environment?  Will they ride in  'quiet cars' even though  those cars may not be close to the entrances or exits convenient to them?

And if the KCRC does not    make these assumptions, then how can they expect the above group of commuters, which most likely has senior and disabled people, to squeeze their way through the crowds in a wobbling train to the 'silent cars'?

In addition, it seems that the KCRC has already assumed that only two out of 12 commuters cannot tolerate the noise.

Otherwise, why are there just two 'quiet cars' but not three or four or more?

Can KCRC tell us the rationale behind this? Is it just an arbitrary arrangement?

If it is, then why is it not the other way round:  assigning two noisy coaches for each 12-car train, and  marking 'noisy car' - or 'unquiet car' if they like - on the platform accordingly for identification purposes?

If the KCRC claims that the so-called infotainment  it provides is a value-added service, then thanks a lot for their generosity.

Could they trade this service  in for less scorching platforms  at Mongkok and Sha Tin stations, and for quiet rides at more reasonable prices?

Can I plead with the KCRC to help bring us back rides without unnecessary noise?

Peter Lam, Aberdeen

Q How can middle-aged men be encouraged to have regular health checks?

Although many people are concerned about their health these days, only a  few have regular body check-ups.

Middle-aged men, who bear the highest possibility of suffering serious disease, should be encouraged by the government to have regular checks.

The government could provide a low-priced or even free service for them.

If the service price  was cheap, it  would attract more middle-aged men to use it.

This would prove worthwhile in the long run, as the government would otherwise need to pay for any public medical services used by middle-aged men.

The  government  could  also arrange a more convenient check-up system.

Most middle-aged men do not have regular health checks as they find the steps needed to arrange for a check-up inconvenient.

Chan Ka-kit, Kwai Chung

Q Should barriers be installed on the Tsing Ma bridge to prevent suicides?

Installing barriers on the bridge is not an effective way to prevent such incidents.

If this method really worked, why not legislate to install iron bars on the windows of all multi-storey buildings to prevent people from jumping?

We know this kind of legislation  could not possibly   prevent suicides because victims  could always simply choose other methods.

Life is most valuable for us. Teaching people how to strive to overcome their difficulties is the long-term solution for  preventing suicides.

Kevin Chan, Tai Po

On other matters...

I believe that both the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examinations and the A-levels fail to finely categorise students into five different passing grades.

As all test takers would know, the difference between an A  or a B, or a D  or an E  can be attributed to   the exam environment as much as to the student's ability. For example,  having to sit right next to an air conditioner as I did  at an HKCEE maths exam three years ago.

Three passing grades - like that of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) - instead of five could reduce this error rate.

No one knows if the GCSE, which is marked in India, has the same problem of losing students' exam papers or misgrading the oral grades as the HKCEE does, but estimating a grade out of three is definitely easier than five.

Moreover, Hong Kong high school students' academic standard is definitely not any lower than other countries', and a fair, internationally referenced grading standard would help boost public confidence in the local exam and education system.

Nevertheless, 43.6 per cent of GCSE candidates taking biology in 2004 got A or A+, but only around 3 per cent of HKCEE candidates could get an A.

How could an A in HKCEE equal  an A in GCSE? Ironically, the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority  website states that 'Grade C or above in most of the HKCEE subjects is recognised as equivalent to an O-level pass (grade C or better) in an overseas GCE examination'.

But the fact is that an E in HKCEE, instead of a C as in GCSE, corresponds to a pass.

Unsurprisingly, universities in Hong Kong would  allow GCSE students with six A passes   to join the early admission scheme.

Dennis Lam, Mid-Levels



Talkback