Should the present hire-car system continue in Discovery Bay? Your story yesterday by Amanda Price ('Discovery Bay fights to keep hire cars') reports that the Transport Department has no intention of forcing Discovery Bay Transit Services to stop their current hire-car service. However, the department's new-found inflexibility concerning bureaucratic regulations, which have already been unobserved for several years, demonstrates they have a peculiar mindset. They seem more concerned with satisfying the demands of a single selfish complainant, seeking to destroy the existing car-hire service, than protecting the interests of the community. Flexibility with the car-hire service is crucial to the needs of the residents of Discovery Bay. While there is a reasonably good internal bus service, there are also absolutely essential needs for residents to occasionally use the hire cars. Being able to flag these cars down and share them with other occupants is good for the community and good for the environment. The concept of sharing hire cars is equivalent to private car-pooling, which is now encouraged by governments in American and European cities. Without such flexibility, a large increase in the number of vehicles would be necessary and the operation rendered financially unviable. What is clearly needed is for the commissioner for transport to exercise his powers granted under Regulation 9 of the Public Service Vehicles Regulations and exempt the operator from the rules preventing this flexibility. Discovery Bay is a special case. It has no taxis or private cars, and the commissioner must therefore be flexible with the normal rules governing hire-car operations. Such an exemption is wholly justified in the public interest. P. A. Crush, Sha Tin What do you think about the quality of schools? I am writing to express my view about so-called teachers who are recruited and sent to primary schools by tutorial companies. I urge the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) and school principals to look carefully at these people's qualifications. I feel the EMB has skirted its responsibilities by allowing candidates with only a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) certificate to work in schools, whether throughout the Native English Teacher scheme or tutorial centres, because they are allowing untrained people into the classroom. I cannot believe the EMB understands that a TEFL certificate is merely a short course, usually lasting no more than four weeks. It provides some basic techniques for teaching small groups of adults, not children. Does the EMB allow the current practice in order to trick parents into thinking their children are learning from a qualified teacher? Such a certificate is obviously not a degree or diploma in education - the latter taking years, not weeks, to earn. Any primary teacher should at least have a Bachelor of Education or a Postgraduate Diploma in Education and also have some experience. I guess the question that begs to be asked is how can those with only a TEFL certificate be equipped to step into a Hong Kong classroom often with 40-plus children? A person with a TEFL certificate could not be employed as a government teacher in any western country, so why should they be here? In my opinion, if the government really cared it would not allow unqualified people in our classrooms, or do they want backpackers teaching in the most formative years of a child's learning? Another issue is related to their rights to work in Hong Kong. If a person is hired by a tutorial company but then sent to work at a school, they technically are not working for the company but, rather, the school itself. This is certainly a grey area. Who would be liable if one of the students gets hurt - the tutorial company, the school, the EMB - for allowing the practice? The government and school principals owe our children and taxpayers real educators, and nothing less is acceptable. Unqualified means unqualified, no matter what country they are from. J. Tsoi, Yuen Long Well, it's that time of the year again when my 11-year-old has to study for his final exams, and once again I cannot believe what he is expected to know. Geography, for example, doesn't cover hills and valleys, rivers, streams and oceans. No, a typical question he has to answer is: 'Give one negative impact of the relocation of the manufacturing industry from Hong Kong to China.' As for general studies, my word! Remember, he's only 11, but here's a question from his workbook: 'What are the favourable factors for the development of the financial industry in Hong Kong?' There's another equally ridiculous question: 'Why is a strong legal system important to Hong Kong's financial industry?' He recited the correct answers to me, but he had no idea what a legal system is or what the financial industry is. Nor should he be expected to know these things now. I surely hope the 'education reforms' result in a change in the type of knowledge being force fed to our young ones. Rennie Marques, Lai Chi Kok Should people be jailed for eating dogs? Obviously, people should be jailed for eating dogs in Hong Kong because of our laws which forbid it. Yet, are the reasons that support such a law fair and reasonable? Of course, dogs and cats can be close companions for humans, but how about other animals, such as sheep and pigs and so on? Surely if we seek to protect cats and dogs, we have a duty to protect other animals. I think this issue should make readers think about why we have such a selective ban. By the way, an easy and legal way to eat dogs is to visit the mainland. You may enjoy all animals there. Tai Kwun-kit, Sheung Shui Should Hong Kong have more cycling tracks? Why should private cars have more rights than private bicycles? Cars take many times the road and parking space, they pollute the air, creating sickness, disease and death; block the roads; kill and injure pedestrians, and have a relatively short life, resulting in a serious disposal problem at the end of their useful life. Bicycles last for decades, use little road space, are completely non-polluting, almost never injure pedestrians and keep bicycle riders healthy, resulting in less strain on the city's health system in the long term. Why is there even an argument about this? Paul Paskewitz, Central On other matters... Around eight months ago, I signed a 12-month contract with Fitness First Gym at a fixed price of HK$495 per month. After only a few months, the price was increased. There was no justification for why they broke the terms of the contract. After arguing with Fitness First, they insisted I had to continue paying this higher rate regardless of the original terms of the agreement and, of course, HSBC refused to stop the payment from my credit card. I am totally disgusted by the attitude of both the bank and Fitness First. After many arguments I was referred to some minute print on the back of the original contract. This print was never pointed out by the salesperson when discussing the contract. Why can't we have some consumer protection in Hong Kong? Dan Patient, Discovery Bay Annelise Connell, of Minibus Spotters, suggests that people should dial 999 when a minibus they are travelling in is breaking the speed limit or driving dangerously (June 28). If people follow her advice, they would cause severe disruption to the 999 emergency service. It is irresponsible to give this kind of advice. What the person should do is make a note of the bus number, time, date and place, then make a report to a police station so follow-up action can be taken. The 999 service is an emergency service and should not be abused in the manner she suggests. M. Johnson, Sai Kung
