Should taxi operators have more vehicle options? I was disappointed to read that five-seater taxis are due to be phased out ('Five-seater taxis' days are numbered', September 29) and I suggest that we are missing out on a golden opportunity to experiment with two classes of taxis in urban Hong Kong. This system works very well in Korea. The normal taxi, usually a four-seater, operates much the same as our taxis here. The deluxe taxis are a more luxurious five-seater model with, naturally, a higher tariff. Apart from the additional seat and extra comforts, other advantages are: All drivers have at least a modicum of the English language and access to a radio translation service; All drivers are smartly turned out in a standard uniform; All drivers attend and pass a course that includes advanced driving skills and communication with passengers; and A deluxe taxi will not stop to pick up other passengers en route, a practice though unlawful that is fairly common with the ordinary taxis in Korea. Wouldn't it be wonderful if our government was more willing to embark on adventurous schemes such as this? John Wilson, Yau Ma Tei Should the four schools facing closure be able to continue Form Four? The birth rate in Hong Kong is dropping, but so far there has been little change in the number of schools. As a result, there are not enough pupils in many of our schools and so some of them now face closure. The threatened end of Form Four in four secondary schools in Tai Po and Sha Tin has aroused strong opposition from parents and teachers. However, I think it would be advisable to shut down those classes. I am not convinced that schools in that position can provide a good education to pupils. They are not able to provide the necessary technical equipment. What is more, it is a waste of resources if the schools have only one or two classes in the lower forms, as the government still has to use the same resources. And Hong Kong has limited land and a school takes up a lot of space. If schools are closed then this will release more land for other uses. It has been argued that if these schools close, teachers will lose their jobs. However, I do not see this as a problem. The government can simply speed up its small-class teaching programme. If these schools with insufficient pupils stay open they are not going to be of benefit to the government or students. Joanna Leung, Sha Tin I refer to the letter from Ho Seung-kwok (Talkback, September 26). I agree with your correspondent's idea that the four secondary schools in Tai Po and Sha Tin should be shut down. Although teachers may lose their jobs and parents will have to help their children find another school, I think it would prove more environmentally friendly and save money. Schools with only a few classes are wasting electricity. They are wasting money on wages and cleaning bills. One idea could be that the threatened schools could combine. There is nothing wrong with striving to save resources. Miuki Lin, Sha Tin I refer to the letter by Ho Seung-kwok (Talkback, September 26). I believe that these four secondary schools in Tai Po and Sha Tin should be allowed to continue their education as before. Some people may argue that closing schools which have only one or two classes in lower forms would be cost-effective and beneficial to the allocation of resources. But no one can promise that the birth rate will keep falling. What if, say after a few years, it starts to go up and continues to do so? If the government has shut and then demolished schools, will it then have to have a rebuilding programme? This would be a serious waste of resources. Also, small classes provide students with a better atmosphere for learning. Teachers can spend more time on each student and better gauge their strengths and weaknesses. There is no denying that small classes can help students achieve better results. So, why do we need to talk about closing secondary schools? Candy Choi, Mong Kok Should central slaughtering start earlier? There is growing support for a central slaughtering system. We have to accept the fact that we need a hygienic and well-organised slaughterhouse. The reason behind it is simple. The government would bear the responsibility for ensuring the safety of poultry killed at the slaughterhouse. I can understand that such a facility could adversely affect some poultry retailers. But we must take into account health considerations. There are safety issues to consider with poultry retailers and we have to bear in mind the threat of the H5N1 bird flu virus. It will be far easier, if there is a central slaughterhouse, for Food and Environmental Hygiene Department staff to check the origins of poultry. This could prevent the outbreak and spread of disease. A central slaughterhouse can also reduce the danger of disease spreading to humans, as people would be separated from live poultry. Critics have argued that a central slaughterhouse can create noise pollution for nearby residents. Obviously the government must look into this potential problem, but it should act as soon as possible and construct the slaughterhouse without delay. Lee Cher-hin, Kennedy Town On other matters ... Typhoon Hagupit caused a great deal of damage to the shoreline in Ma Lam Wat village. Bits of boats, kayaks and acres of polystyrene presented an environmental disaster. On Sunday, however, residents, visiting canoeists and tourists waded in among the detritus and removed large amounts of the rubbish. They are to be congratulated; it demonstrated that co-operation wins every time. John Brennan, Sai Kung
