教育王國
標題: ESF 英基資助 [打印本頁]
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-11-1 09:06 標題: ESF 英基資助
教局勢撤英基經常資助
學費料加逾兩成 不影響現有學生
[size=150%]【明報專訊】教育局昨回覆立法會
質詢時明言，英基轄下學校現享有的經常性資助須逐步取消，未來取錄學生勢無法按人頭獲學費資助。英基學校協會主席唐家成表示，政府資助約佔營運開支兩成，粗略計學費最多需加逾兩成。他稱，正與教局就新資助模式磋商，盼利用英語特殊教育等專長爭取資源。
[size=150%]冀逐步過渡至自負盈虧
教育局昨以書面回應議員提問，就英基未來資助模式提出新方向，表示當局立場為逐步取消對英基經常資助，並過渡至自負盈虧。據悉，英基學校現獲按學生人數計算的經常性資助，政府未來有意改為按項目非經常性資助，例如只資助發展英語特殊教育等。不過，教育局會保障新模式落實前已入讀的學生不受影響。
改按項目資助
英基學校協會主席唐家成表示，協會將繼續與教育局磋商，落實逐步取消資助的做法。唐指早前與教育局長吳克儉
會面，已重申英基於本港教育的重要，但當局堅決要求先取消現行資助，再商討新資助模式。他認為，按項目資助限制較大，盼當局考慮給予一筆過資助。唐亦表示，若英基徹底脫離政府資助，將承受加學費壓力
，估計最大加幅逾兩成，即由現時6.6萬至10萬元增至8萬至逾12萬元不等。
此外，英基上月實施提名權計劃，受立法會議員質疑。議員張宇人
向教育局提出書面質詢，指英基轄下15所中小學及特殊學校，新學年將提供150個50萬元的提名名額，擔心有違公平辦學原則。教育局長吳克儉回應，已要求英基向家長清楚解釋，並需公開帳目。吳又表示，未來會繼續溝通，商討學校定位及發展。 http://news.mingpao.com/20121101/goh1.htm
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-11-1 09:09
ESF debenture scheme criticized
(10-31 15:18)
Several legislators have criticised the government for allowing the English Schools Foundation to introduce a new debenture scheme, RTHK reports.
The foundation's selling 150 non-refundable debentures, at HK$500,000 each, which give children priority for school places.
The ESF says the money is to be used for redevelopment projects. League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung accused the government of allowing places in ESF schools to become a privilege.
The Liberal Party's Tommy Cheung Yu-yan, a former ESF board member, was also unhappy.
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=27076&icid=3&d_str=20121101
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-11-1 09:12
The English Schools Foundation must introduce a local rather than international curriculum if it wants to keep its subvention, Education Secretary Eddie Ng Hak-kim told Legco yesterday.
Ng's statement was immediately rejected by ESF chairman Carlson Tong Ka-shing, who said if the government insisted on withdrawing the foundation's subsidy it should not be done until all present students had passed through the school.
"Current parents must be protected and I know that Mr Ng also agrees on this," he said.
Tong also said the recent decision to introduce a HK$500,000 charge to reserve a school place was meant to raise funds for renovations and it would affect only a very small number of places.
In answer to a lawmaker's question, Ng told the Legislative Council yesterday the subvention would be phased out.
"We have informed the ESF that the existing recurrent subvention should be phased out gradually," he said.
"We will stick with the principle that if it doesn't provide a local curriculum, such as the Hong Kong Diploma for Secondary Education, the subvention model will change.
"It should consider how it can … provide services that fit the local needs in Hong Kong," he said of the schools, which cater for 13,000 children.
The statement raised concerns among parents and teachers, who are divided on whether the foundation should drop the subvention to keep its international curriculum or face an overhaul in order to keep its subsidy and avoid big fee rises.
Tong, who has advocated that the ESF subvention be on par with that given to Direct Subsidy Schools, said the foundation could not sacrifice providing an international curriculum.
He said the government had told him it was considering phasing out the subvention over the next 13 years. But he said no agreement had been reached and parents would be consulted before key decisions were made.
The ESF is the largest English-language curriculum provider in Hong Kong and receives a long-frozen subvention of HK$283 million a year.
Last year, former education secretary Michael Suen Ming-yeung described the school system, which was established in 1967, as a legacy of the colonial era and that funding should ultimately be phased out.
But talks between the foundation and the government have failed to reach an agreement.
The ESF has experienced increasing demand in recent years in light of a shortage of international school places for expatriates, with thousands of pupils on waiting lists.
Concerned parent Hans Ladegaard said it was a sensible proposal for ESF to offer a local curriculum because it received government funding.
But he said if the curriculum was changed, the issue of a waiting list for its international curriculum may also be exacerbated as many parents wanted one.
An ESF teacher, Davies Lesley, said she did think the ESF should stop providing an international curriculum. "The philosophy of the school has always been international," she said.
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1074076/esf-must-provide-local-curriculum-eddie-ng-says
作者: Mighty 時間: 12-11-1 09:24
本帖最後由 Mighty 於 12-11-1 05:45 編輯
如果真是加費２成、我懐疑英基会否還像現在受歓迎？ 多人想入英基、都是因為学費比較便宜。 其実英基係培養本地英文水準的角色都不軽的、点解D議員死口不放？ 香港真係好多野不公平、老人家的特恵生果金就要審査、一生人努力為口弆馳、有１０幾万CASH係戸口、有MAAK出奇？ 他門年軽時総是在不同崗位上為社会出過力、点解不可以享受一丁点社会的回贈？？ 双非的、就MAAK都不用做、全面享受香港的免費教育。
作者: crystalpui 時間: 12-11-1 09:54
本來我都打算申請一下ESF
但如果加20%, 我就唔考慮了
我都係免免強強的家長而已
作者: alpham0m 時間: 12-11-1 10:29
將好的教育貴族化，讓一般市民負擔不起，又一香港「德政」，真是哀莫大於心死。全港民間應該下半旗致哀。
作者: tcbobo 時間: 12-11-1 10:53
有冇人知"present students" 會否包括已申請明年入學的學生呢?
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-11-1 10:55
一定不包括, ( 現已註冊)
作者: crystalpui 時間: 12-11-1 11:08
tcbobo 發表於 12-11-1 10:53 
有冇人知"present students" 會否包括已申請明年入學的學生呢?
作者: tcbobo 時間: 12-11-1 11:53
但是否有可能會在未來數月落實新模式呢? 我們的政府和立法會有這麼高效率嗎?
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-11-1 12:15
With 1-2 months is ok, coz, they want to cut the money !!!!
作者: sschiu 時間: 12-11-1 17:30
tcbobo 發表於 12-11-1 10:53 
有冇人知"present students" 會否包括已申請明年入學的學生呢?
如果已經申請左入學的, 不會受影響。
作者: Cytine 時間: 12-11-1 18:12 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
Included existing kindergarten student??
作者: siulumjing 時間: 12-11-1 18:20 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
I really think existing ESF Kindergarten students should fall into the 'existing student' category as most parents, if not all, placed their kids there for the sole purpose if entering into the ESF primary school!
作者: sschiu 時間: 12-11-1 18:21
Cytine 發表於 12-11-1 18:12
Included existing kindergarten student??
英基幼稚園一向都沒有政府資助的。
作者: Cytine 時間: 12-11-1 18:27 標題: 回覆：sschiu 的帖子
我意思係依家讀緊ESF kinder K1&K2的，將來入讀ESF Primary, 會交有資助交平學費嗎？
作者: Cytine 時間: 12-11-1 18:29 標題: 回覆：siulumjing 的帖子
Yes, that's what I want to clarify! They should be included in "existing student "!
作者: sschiu 時間: 12-11-1 18:36 標題: 回覆：Cytine 的帖子
那要問問局長吧！
作者: poonseelai 時間: 12-11-1 19:42
I think existing kindergarten students will not get any subsidiary even if they were admitted to primary. Currently the government only subsidises primary and secondary. The 13 years transition period would mean, I think, for year 1 to year 13 only.
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-11-2 10:10
About ESFThe English Schools Foundation was established by the Hong Kong Government to provide the people of Hong Kong with a seamless, affordable English language education focused on excellence in learning and catering to the diverse needs of the community.
ESF started in 1967 with just two schools – Island School and Beacon Hill School. Over the years, other well-established schools, such as King George V and Quarry Bay School, became part of ESF. In addition, some new schools were purpose-built to meet growing demand. These include Sha Tin College (opened in 1982) and West island School (1991).
ESF currently operates five secondary schools, nine primary schools and a school for students with special educational needs across Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories. Two "all-through" Private Independent Schools (PIS) and four kindergartens are operated by ESF's affiliated company, ESF Educational Services Limited, which also offers English language classes and sports activities.
The curriculum, leading to the International Baccalaureate (IB), is adapted to Hong Kong and the Asia Pacific region. ESF's teachers are highly qualified, with experience of the UK, Australian and other international school systems. School facilities are safe, secure and of the highest standards. All schools offer a broad range of out-of-school activities in Hong Kong and overseas. ESF schools are strongly supported by thriving and dynamic parent-teacher associations.
The 13,000 students in ESF schools and the 4,000 in the PIS and the kindergartens include over 50 different nationalities. About 70% of our students have parents who are permanent residents of Hong Kong. We are proud of our high academic standards and the excellent achievements of our students – more than 95% go on to leading universities worldwide
www.esf.edu.hk
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-11-2 10:11
So, kindergarten and PIS 不算有資助.
作者: ANChan59 時間: 12-11-2 11:34
If EDB really picked on ESF, how about LPCUWC?
Also lift the bar for DSS can provides higher percentage other curriculum like IB or GCE..... If ESF maintain the DSS status, it's unfair to other DSS schools to provide majority local curriculum.
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-11-2 11:52
yes, you are right !!!!!!!!!
http://www.lpcuwc.edu.hk/
作者: Mighty 時間: 12-11-2 17:40
想用国教YUK下你地、点知就比一、両個青年百両BUK千斤「軽軽」送走、無MAAK野YUK,就不如YUK班中産LA,英基是港英余孼、共産狼硬下容不下LA,是否是時候英基家長或想入英基的、一斉上下街？？
作者: siulumjing 時間: 12-11-2 18:34 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
I should have phrase it more clearly. What I meant in my previous post was that, I think existing students of ESF kindergartens should also get the subsidy should they move onto the ESF primary schools as the proposed discontinuation of the government grants were not in placed when the parents enrolled them into the kindergarten.
Most parents, if not all, registered their kids to the ESF kindergartens so to have greater chance to continue their education in ESF primary schools. So I think the phasing out of the government subvention should extend for another 2 years, i.e., over the next 15 years instead of 13 years.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-2 18:38 標題: 引用：想用国教YUK下你地、点知就比一、両個青年
原帖由 Mighty 於 12-11-02 發表
想用国教YUK下你地、点知就比一、両個青年百両BUK千斤「軽軽」送走、無MAAK野YUK,就不如YUK班中産LA,英基是 ...
作者: siulumjing 時間: 12-11-3 12:17 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
Just my personal opinion. I think ESF is popular not only because it is an IS with government subsidy, but because it's teaching method of encouraging kids to think independently, provide sufficient room for kids to explore and inquire but yet with good discipline. So for parents not opting for the hong kong style teaching method, it sure is one of the best option. Just my 2 cents...
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-3 12:47 標題: 引用：Just+my+personal+opinion.+I+think+ESF+is
原帖由 siulumjing 於 12-11-03 發表
Just my personal opinion. I think ESF is popular not only because it is an IS with government subsid ...
I am not saying we pull the funding now, i think we should review the reasons behind education subsidy in ESF and yet without any of the obligations DSS have to follow. How can we explain that to DSS and other international schools? How can we explain that to tax payers?
作者: ANChan59 時間: 12-11-3 14:05
回復 siulumjing 的帖子
So for parents not opting for the hong kong style teaching method, it sure is one of the best option.
*******
That's the original idea of DSS, isn't it?
作者: siulumjing 時間: 12-11-3 14:11 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
I don't object the point of phasing out the subsidy because, yes, if we are to look at it from the governance perspective, and that it seemed the ESF objective of providing a secured schooling to those English government officials of the then colonial Hong Kong has slightly changed. What I'm saying is, at least for students of the existing ESF systems, be it from the primary schools, secondary schools AND kindergartens, the subsidy should cover them as the removal of the subsidy was not in placed when they registered.
However, of course I also think there are sound reasons justifying ESF to continue receiving the grants. Hong Kong is now ranking almost the lowest amongst Asia, in terms of English standards of school aged children. Because ESF is not following the local systems, they are able to use their approach to produce very high standards in educating youngsters, who in future years, becomes part of the HK work force contributing to the community. Bear in mind a large population of the ESF students are HK residents and parents are tax payers. Infact a lot of the elite DSS schools have set their entrance requirements so high, or even so invisible, they are also taking advantage of the subsidy to meet the school's objective. I studied from one of these elite school when I was young, and definitely know there are students being admitted by connections. Now that ESF entry requirements are crystal clear, what's wrong with giving a better option for those parents with kids meeting the requirements on alternative teaching methods? I'm not saying their admission criteria is without flaws, perhaps they can add another requirements of proofing kids enrolling whose parent(s) are tax payers?
作者: md23 時間: 12-11-3 15:42
siulumjing 發表於 12-11-3 14:11
I don't object the point of phasing out the subsidy because, yes, if we are to look at it from the g ...
作者: siulumjing 時間: 12-11-3 15:56 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
Hey I absolutely agree that they should have the voucher system in place for all eligible residents to be fair! But the thing is our government is not good on this kind of administration, they are going to spend lots on administering this, which is a real problem too!
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-3 16:27
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-3 17:28 編輯
md23 發表於 12-11-3 15:42
HK should move to a voucher system where HK residents receives voucher and they can choose whichever school they want ...
Yep, a voucher system would be a fair system, but it isn't going to fundamentally change the current state of affairs. 70% of ESF students ARE Hongkong residents, ESF is no longer a group of "colonial" schools full of ex-pats, so most of the subsidy money are ALREADY going to Hongkong residents. In any case, I bet a voucher system isn't going to shut some people up, those who have a bone to pick with ESF will just try to find another bone.
作者: siulumjing 時間: 12-11-3 17:01 標題: 回覆：FattyDaddy 的帖子
Can't agree more!
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-3 18:20 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+FattyDaddy+於+12-11-3+17:28+
原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-03 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-3 17:28 編輯
While all other IS are private schools enjoying complete freedom including not offering HKDSE program, but they don't get a dime from the tax payers.
Why should ESF be special and getting the best of both worlds: money and complete freedom?
I have nothing against ESF. They are good schools and I have friends with kids studying in ESF. It is just that at some point this special status has to stop. 15 years is a long time.
If the subvention is lifted, There will still be long waiting lists for ESF. So why don't we do it?
作者: sschiu 時間: 12-11-3 18:25 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
本帖最後由 sschiu 於 12-11-3 18:36 編輯
I personally appreciate very much the non-selective admissions policy of ESF (because it is subsidised), unlike other international, private and DSS schools. It follows strictly the mission to provide English medium education to those who should benefit from it. Just for this I think ESF deserves to receive the government subsidy rather than some elite DSS schools that have made quality education even more unreachable for many people!
作者: alpham0m 時間: 12-11-3 18:55
本帖最後由 alpham0m 於 12-11-3 20:53 編輯
We all have our personal believes, just like there is a majority out there who don't believe in national education, there are parents like me who are terrified by the local education system which evaluates the ability of your child based on exams.
Parents are voting for ESF schools by sending their kids there, some even choose to sacrifice the opportunity for their kids to learn the mother tongue as the last resort. Why? Because they believe in the way of teaching in ESF and it is the only affordable option for many middle class/lower middle class families who are so desperate to give their children a good education because they have no faith in the local system. My question is, why should we as tax payers be denied a more affordable and desirable option such as ESF? Why can't we tell these law makers who we sent into Legco by our votes and tax money that we deserve this option?
I personally don't see ESF enjoys a "special status", but as an option of hope for parents who completely lose faith in the local system where everything is about excelling the exam rather than the enjoyment of learning. By the time those kids finish primary school, they have completely lost interests in learning/school because it is such a grueling experience.
I believe it is time for a change, but by the look of it, it is a change for worse, not better. Very sad, really.
作者: sschiu 時間: 12-11-3 19:33 標題: 回覆：alpham0m 的帖子
I remember the ESF subvention was debated at legco last year by the law makers we voted with EDB (at that time Kenneth Chan) and most of our honourable legislators criticised EDB's arguments to phase out the subsidies. But what happens now?
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-3 20:04 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
What if someone also terrified by the local system and If they can only afford 5k a month not the ESF's 8k? What can the government and law makers do? Add subsidy to ESF so they can be cheaper? Do the government and tax payers obliged to help those who can afford only 5k? What about those who can only afford 1k? Do we need to eventually turn half of local schools to ESF schools?
Some reasons for ESF are valid. But it is not about giving valid reasons. It is about fairness. If you say non selective admission is good enough reason for the subsidy, the same rule has to be applied to every school in HK, not just ESF.
ESF get the money and no rules. If this is not favoritism and special status, what is?
作者: Mighty 時間: 12-11-3 20:47
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-3 13:20
If we put aside our emotions and look at this objectively, it is so easy to see the colonial reasons ...
"All DSS have _100%_ HK students ", Shadeslayer, your saying is simply not ture. Pui Kiu in Tai Wai has Japanese and Wong Kam Fai in Ma On Shan has mixed nationality students as well. And do you think international schools in Hong Kong are getting their land at a true market rate? Find out and go figure. ESF is one of the good things that our old colonial govt left us so please leave us alone.
作者: alpham0m 時間: 12-11-3 21:05
本帖最後由 alpham0m 於 12-11-3 21:18 編輯
Why get rid of somthing old and good? In order to be fair, we should make everything the same so no one enjoys a "special" treat? If you want a special treat, then pay dearly because the poor or the less previllaged don't deserve a good education just like the richies? But we are talking about education here.
In that same mentality, we shall tear down all the heritage buildings in the city to make room for more residential buildings since the price of housing is going through the roof simply because it isn't fair?
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-3 21:21
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-3 21:33 編輯
alpham0m If we are talking about fairness here, I am for the voucher system. 發表於 8 分鐘前
I agree. But before we have a form of voucher system, what do we do with ESF? Do we have to tie the question of ESF subvention with voucher system?
Mighty,
Whether a DSS has less than 100% HK residents does not change my argument. 98% of DSS schools has 100% local students anyway (you may argue it is not 98% it is 95% but it does not change the argument): Whatever applies to ESF must also apply to other schools, bear in mind it has been 15 years after British administration ended. Nobody can tell me why ESF should continue to receive tax payers money without obligations and why don't we apply the "good thing" left by the colonial government to CIS, HKIS, KIS or Tutortime.
If I am the principal or a parent of CIS, and we asked for the same ESF treatment from tax payers, what can you say to us? Because it was colonial "good things" and should be left alone? That's it? How many more years? 15 years, 150 years? Eternity?
I am not attacking ESF, as I said, ESF are good schools. The subvention needs to be reviewed and it has to end at some point. And I agree all registered students should not be affected. I have friends and family enjoying the special status but it is about fairness.
作者: alpham0m 時間: 12-11-3 21:28
本帖最後由 alpham0m 於 12-11-3 21:45 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
I guess we will see what surprises our law makers will bring us in December then. I might write a letter to the one I helped sent into office and express my view and suggest the voucher system. I doubt it will change anything they will decide to do but at least I do what I could. Concerned parents, I think you should do the same too.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-3 22:30
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-3 18:20
All DSS have _100%_ HK students and they receive funding from the government, yet they all have to be bound by rules, eg, they all have to deliver HK DSE program....
Say there are 2 countries A and B, in country A the government subsidize their schools on condition that their curriculum strictly follow government rules, in country B the government subsidize their schools but give them a free hand on how they design their curriculum. I don't know about you but I sure know which government I prefer to have.
So what if ESF has the best of both worlds? If you are really advocating for fairness, you should fight for all schools in Hongkong to have the same freedom as ESF, instead of fighting against ESF to have either their money or freedom taken away to achieve a "lowest common denominator" kind of equality.
作者: Maoku 時間: 12-11-3 22:58 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+alpham0m+於+12-11-3+20:53+編
原帖由 alpham0m 於 12-11-03 發表
本帖最後由 alpham0m 於 12-11-3 20:53 編輯
We all have our personal believes, just like there is a ...
BTW, the majority of Legco member were not sent by us. Can't expect they support any initiative that allows even more local students to escape from the local school system. 
作者: siulumjing 時間: 12-11-3 23:01 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
I'm curious that what obligations are we talking about here? ESF is providing a really good education standard to the local community. Isn't that already fulfilling it's obligation as an education institute? How about the ones that provide crap standards but following the government rules, they are meeting the obligations, not the standards but still ok?
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-3 23:15
FattyDaddy 發表於 12-11-3 22:30
Haha, this is very Confucian isn't it? (please take that as a compliment). "If you take money from t ...
If we still have our senses, we know turning all local schools in HK into ESF (-like) schools is not going to happen. What choices do we really have?
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-4 00:06
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-4 00:12 編輯
siulumjing 發表於 12-11-3 23:01
I'm curious that what obligations are we talking about here? ESF is providing a really good educatio ...
DSS:
The price for DSS to get operation funding from the government:
- DSS has to admit at least 70% HK residents (a rule)
- DSS has to run HK DSE curriculum (a rule) although they can run multiple curriculum like HKDSE + IB
- other items I don't know.
IS or PIS:
All other International Schools or PIS get "NO" operation funding from Government. However, in return they have:
- No rules to admit at least 70% HK residents
- No rules to run HK DSE
ESF:
The price for ESF to get yearly circa HK$300M operation funding from the government is NONE:
- No rules to admit at least 70% HK residents
- No rules to run HK DSE
ESF gets the funding like the DSS but has the freedom like a IS/PIS. Isn't it easy to see the issue here? How can anyone, hands on heart, say this is not a problem and is fair to all other schools in HK. We all know we cannot fund all HK schools to become ESF-like schools. Nor should we do it.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-4 00:35
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-4 01:41 編輯
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-3 23:15
What choices do we really have? ...
You're asking me? I'll give you a "sensible" answer.
In any country, attending local schools is the norm, say if there is something wrong with local schools in a democratic country like France, the French will try to fix their local schools instead of sending their children to British or German international schools. OK, given the reality that Hongkong is neither democratic nor a country, Hongkongers don't have much say in changing anything, so the sensible choice for those who don't want to put their children through local schools would be to opt for international schools.
Most if not all international schools in Hongkong receive some form of assistance from the government, schools like Harrow and Kellet and Christian Alliance only pay peanuts to rent the land they are sitting on (Harrow pays $1000 for a plot of land valued at $600,000,000), in the case of ESF they also get a subvention, but ESF share that benefit with the parents in the form of low tuition fees, making quality international school education more accessible to the average Hongkonger.
If you are sending your children to international schools (obviously not ESF) and you feel ESF is receiving unfair favouritism, the sensible thing to do is to fight for the same niceties to be given to the international schools of your concern, now that is far more achievable than making all local schools to be like ESF isn't it? If you're not even willing to do that, what good could possibly be achieved by fighting to have the niceties taken away from ESF except some melancholic kind of satisfaction knowing that "if I can't have it then they can't have it either".
作者: tcbobo 時間: 12-11-4 00:51 標題: 回覆：FattyDaddy 的帖子
還有馬會捐錢起 Australian international school 和 Canadian international school 的校舍
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-4 00:53
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-4 01:08 編輯
FattyDaddy 發表於 12-11-4 00:35
You're asking me? I'll give you a "sensible" answer.
In any country, attending local schools is th ...
In terms of getting support from the government on "land", ESF received just as much as all other IS / PIS. Unless someone tells me otherwise, the only significant difference between ESF and other IS/PIS is the yearly circa HK$300M funding for operation. How is this reasonable?
I am repeating myself here and the discussion is not making progress. As I said, I am not against ESF schools per se, but the subvention and the role of ESF going forward need to be considered seriously. What is the valid reason to single out ESF from all IS in HK and give them funding?
Also, we must not forget, the ESF funding is a recurring funding from tax payers. Completely different from some charity body or alumni donating to some schools some money. how can we even compare the two types of money?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't both the DSS and ESF receive about 2.5k per month per student from the government?
When asked why the favoritism, answers like "good thing from colonial era", or "Parents of all other IS/PIS/DSS should fight for the _colonial good thing_ by yourself" are not satisfying. After all, it is tax payers money.
Good night.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-4 01:13
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-4 00:53
What is the valid reason to single out ESF from all IS in HK and give them funding? ...
The right question to ask is, "What is the valid reason for the international schools of your concern not to receive the same level of assistance as ESF?".
If your brother gets an extra apple from mum and you think it is unfair, you should ask mum to also give you an extra apple, instead of asking mum to take the extra apple away from your brother.
作者: siulumjing 時間: 12-11-4 01:20 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
ESF doesn't have the freedom to restrict or give priority to certain nationalities. All other IS give priority to citizens of their own country.
ESF is non- discriminatory in the sense that they don't test how brilliant the kid is before they offer a place( very different from most, if not all DSS, they only test on their communication skills to ensure they can get and understand whats being taught.
As to % of residence, I really have no idea on the proportion of PRs, but if by either switching to the voucher system/ imposing criteria regarding to tax paying status of the parents or some similar measures, isn't that a better way to solve the issue? After all, this grants are probably the only benefits that a lot of the so-called 'middle class' can manage to obtain without affecting any other people. Why do we have to go about cutting it out when no one will be better off?
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-4 01:31
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-4 01:38 編輯
FattyDaddy 發表於 12-11-4 01:13
That is not the right question to ask.
The right question to ask is, "What is the valid reason for ...
No no, why single out ESF and give them perpetual funding is the right question to ask and is the right problem to solve. Because the alternative---turning all IS / PIS into ESF like operation funding is a much bigger problem to solve. And surely all DSS will request to drop all the restrictions they currently have and keep the money. This effectively will destroy the HK schooling system.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-4 02:01
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-4 02:06 編輯
siulumjing 發表於 12-11-4 01:20
ESF doesn't have the freedom to restrict or give priority to certain nationalities. All other IS giv ...
ESF doesn't have the freedom to restrict or give priority to certain nationalities. All other IS give priority to citizens of their own country.
shadeslayer: Did the government attach the rule "Cannot give certain nationality priority in admission" when they hand out 300M to ESF?
ESF is non- discriminatory in the sense that they don't test how brilliant the kid is before they offer a place( very different from most, if not all DSS, they only test on their communication skills to ensure they can get and understand whats being taught.
shadeslayer: The crux of the problem here is not on the "actual" difference between the admission policy of DSS and ESF. One very big restriction is the curriculum: DSS has to offer a HKDSE program.
As to % of residence, I really have no idea on the proportion of PRs, but if by either switching to the voucher system/ imposing criteria regarding to tax paying status of the parents or some similar measures, isn't that a better way to solve the issue? After all, this grants are probably the only benefits that a lot of the so-called 'middle class' can manage to obtain without affecting any other people. Why do we have to go about cutting it out when no one will be better off?
shadeslayer: Again, it is easy for you to say it. But fundamentally changing the HK education system by using a voucher system is a huge undertaking and affects "everyone" in the education industry, tipping the balance of different types of schools and people. Government schools, subsidized schools, DSS, IS/PIS will all be affected. All of them. A single DSS scheme has taken more than 10 years to become more mature and starting to see the fruits. The voucher system will need about 10 years of discussion before pilots can be planned, if we are optimistic.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-4 02:16
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-4 02:24 編輯
If you used to receive unique benefits (say beer allowance of 50% of your salary) in a company, nobody else has it, just because you were the cousin of the boss. Later, the boss was gone and someone unrelated to you became the boss. 15 years later, the new boss has had enough and asks HR to remove your unique benefit of 50% beer allowance, you explained there are valid "historical" reasons and said:
1. It is the only "good" thing left from the last boss, leave me alone!
2. The allowance is a good thing, let all other employees in the company to fight for this for themselves. Leave me alone.
3. Alternatively, the company should fundamentally change the benefits system and implement a beer voucher system to make it perfectly fair. Before a perfectly fair beer voucher system is in place. Let me continue to have the 50% beer allowance.
Do you hands on heart think it is reasonable? May be I am foolish to take on a topic so dear to the many ESF parents here. Anyway.
I have made all my points. Good night again.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-4 03:28
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-4 03:40 編輯
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-4 02:16
If you used to receive unique benefits (say beer allowance of 50% of your salary) in a company, nobody else has it, just because you were the cousin of the boss. ...
70% of ESF students are Hongkong residents, ESF schools are no longer "colonial" ex-pat schools (an image so steadfastly stuck in your mind). To put this fact back into your analogy, both the boss AND THE COUSIN had left the company 15 years ago, replaced by a new boss and a new employee, and the beer allowance is no longer a "cousin benefit" but an "employee benefit".
Why should this "employee benefit" be continued? Because the "new employee" does a better job than the "cousin", in the past ESF was almost exclusively for ex-pats, now it is providing quality international education to mostly local Hongkongers.
Should the other "employees" get the same benefit? If the other "employees" do as good a job, sure thing.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-4 08:35 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+FattyDaddy+於+12-11-4+03:40+
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-4 08:44 編輯
原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-04 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-4 03:40 編輯
Do you think CIS/GSIS/HKIS etc are not doing as good a job, if not a better job than ESF. They are eligible for subvention then. How do we formalize it though? what about other IS on par with ESF, how do we define good job. How do we monitor performance. If we continue to do this to other IS, will it break the bank? A whole load of questions are going to surface if we try to find logic in all this. Don't get me wrong, I do think ESF does a good job.
Back to the company, the cousin employee (ESF) who is receiving benefits no one else receives is still in the company. He used to take the beer allowance and buy beers for himself and a handful of his close friends in the company. For 15 years, cousin employee has no protection from the old boss but he continues to be the only in the company to receive beer allowance. 15 years on, almost all his close friends are now gone, instead 70% if his beer money is used to buy bears for those who are not necessarily his friends- the normal company employees.
Should the cousin employee continue to receive allowance forever unchallenged? What gives cousin employee the right to be the only one to receive beer allowance and decide who in the company he will buy bear for? Eternal right?
More allowance is always a good thing for employees but not necessarily for the company. The company will not survive or the productivity is severely damaged if everyone gets the allowance.
The cousin employee is a good employee and is delivering a respectable performance. However, he is likely not THE best performing employee. Even if he is THE best performing employee in the company, the beer allowance should be "formalized" in the company board as a formal policy. So one day a better employee may receive the beer allowance instead.
It has been an interesting discussion. I will stop before I spend TOO much time here.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-4 09:07
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-4 08:35
Do you think CIS/GSIS/HKIS etc are not doing as good a job, if not a better job than ESF ...
In this company analogy you keep bringing up, the boss (the British government) is gone, the cousin (ESF schools serving Brtish ex-pats) is gone, now it is a new boss and a new employee (ESF schools serving Hongkongers), get over it.
作者: mrshoho 時間: 12-11-4 10:36 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
Interesting discussion going on here...
作者: ANChan59 時間: 12-11-4 12:16
討論形式，論點熟口熟面，好快又失控，跟住有人又俾人Ban。
希望我睇錯！
作者: Maoku 時間: 12-11-4 17:38 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+FattyDaddy+於+12-11-4+01:41+
原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-04 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-4 01:41 編輯
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-4 23:05
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-4 23:06 編輯
sschiu Some clarifications here: the amount of subsidies received by each DSS and ESF primary student PER YEAR are around HK$35K and HK$17K respectively, and for secondary HK$44K and HK$24K. 發表於 8 小時前
SS: thanks, good to know. Does not change the arguments here though.
This topic was one of the more popular one recently and I did wish more people would express their viewpoint instead of being read-only. Alas there were only a few participants.
I wish I realize the following earlier. Well, better late than never. The ESF subvention topic is fundamentally not appropriate for forum discussion because there is clearly those who receive financial benefits and those who don't. The discussion cannot be objective from the very beginning and therefore destined to end without progress. Lesson learn for me.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-5 00:33
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-5 00:45 編輯
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-4 23:05
The ESF subvention topic is fundamentally not appropriate for forum discussion because there is clearly those who receive financial benefits and those who don't ...
This is not really the problem. In real life there is no such thing as total equality, there will always be people who have and people who don't, it is a fact of life, but there are 2 ways (I call it a right way and a wrong way) to address inequality.
If A has something good and B has not, the positive way to bring equality is to give B the same, the negative way is to take it away from A. Sadly, many people in this part of the world subscribe to the negative way and that is the problem, instead of questioning why B does not have, they question why A has.
Hongkongers who have that attitude should be aware that in the wider scope of affairs, they are enjoying freedoms and privileges which 1.3 billion Chinese don't have, if these 1.3 billion people also adopt a negative attitude (in fact many of them already do), then Hongkongers are in for BIG trouble, because instead of asking the government to grant them the same freedoms and privileges, these 1.3 billion will ask the government to take the freedoms and privileges away from Hongkongers.
If you have learned anything from this discussion, I hope it is this.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-5 00:51
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-5 00:53 編輯
> shadeslayer Resources is not unlimited
True, but the government can distribute limited resources more evenly, in fact if resources are indeed distributed more evenly ESF will only get more money than now.
Last but not least, is the Hongkong government short of money?
作者: bbdmami 時間: 12-11-5 14:25
If the argument is on fairness, I remember someone under another discussion thread mentioned that expats are tax payers too. Plus all the HK local middle class who are also paying tax and sending their kids to ESF....
To argue about removing Gov't subsidy and having these tax payers pay higher tuition for their kids...I wonder who is being discriminated.
作者: C_D_E 時間: 12-11-8 11:09
News coverage on SCMP for reference:
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-ko ... -may-rise-next-year
作者: manstap 時間: 12-11-8 16:47
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: mrshoho 時間: 12-11-8 22:29 標題: 引用：a+good+news+to+those+who+hve+SOUR+Grapes
原帖由 manstap 於 12-11-08 發表
a good news to those who hve SOUR Grapes
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-8 23:27
There is actually an easy way to increase the funding to ESF and no government officials, lawmakers or fellow citizen can refuse: turn ESF to DSS schools.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-9 00:26
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-9 02:12 編輯
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-8 23:27
turn ESF to DSS schools ...
(1) As far as serving the Hongkong public is concerned, ESF schools are already like DSS schools, the student population are mostly local Hongkongers.
(2) If your issue is ESF having more freedom than DSS schools while they both receive government money, then fight for DSS schools to have the same freedom.
1 is a matter of fact, and 2 is a matter of attitude.
作者: ANChan59 時間: 12-11-9 09:36
本帖最後由 ANChan59 於 12-11-9 10:44 編輯
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
I agree with your point 2.
Some DSS can't increase the quota of IB stream, even surge demand from students and parents. I am not saying just like IS or ESF -100%, from 25% to 45% is good enough.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-9 10:17
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-9 10:42 編輯
ANChan59 發表於 12-11-9 09:36
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
from 25% to 45% is good enough
Yes, individual DSS schools when given more freedom can decide on the percentage according to the students they are targeting, there will always be some families who prefer the traditional way of learning, in fact I have a friend who called back his children from UK to attend local schools in HK because he thought they were just wasting time and not learning anything useful over there. For families aiming for ESF and other IS, they will also have more choices available if DSS schools also offer a route to avoid traditional learning (at reasonable cost too), it will be a win-win situation.
The bottom line is, more freedom is better than less, more variety is better than less {:1_1:}
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-9 11:26 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+FattyDaddy+於+12-11-9+02:12+
原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-09 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-9 02:12 編輯
For (2) I think we discussed that before, you are asking all DSS to become ESF. Is that what HK need, bear in mind the local HK parents who want to send their kids to ESF is still a minority. Is that practical?
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-9 11:51 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+ANChan59+於+12-11-9+10:44+編
原帖由 ANChan59 於 12-11-09 發表
本帖最後由 ANChan59 於 12-11-9 10:44 編輯
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
You said some DSS cannot increase the IB places? Is that a limit placed by EDB? What is that limit?
作者: ANChan59 時間: 12-11-9 13:26
Yes, the general ruling is majority in local curriculum. Say DBS is limited to 60 seats initially, I guessed the new IB campus not ready, so the number limited to 60. Now the new building has been used for sometime, the new intake is still 60. I know the school applied for 100 seats for sometime.
Some schools are forced to screen students, not the double selection, just due to DSS ruling.
For HKUGA, originally planned for IB, but the ruling forced them to quit and only NSS at senior, but junior still stakes IB format or approach.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-9 14:37 標題: 引用：Yes,+the+general+ruling+is+majority+in+l
原帖由 ANChan59 於 12-11-09 發表
Yes, the general ruling is majority in local curriculum. Say DBS is limited to 60 seats initially, I ...
作者: swat 時間: 12-11-9 15:19
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-9 14:37
Some schools choose not to run dual curriculum because of the complex logistics. all DSS has to offe ...
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-9 16:38 標題: 回覆：ESF 英基資助
FattyDaddy
I KNOW there many Chinese looking students in ESF. May be 70% of them are really HK residents. May be they are not. But that is not the point. ESF had an explicit admission rule that de-prioritize Cantonese speaking applicants. 98% of HK people speak Cantonese and 100% of ethnic Chinese in HK speaks Cantonese. Some say this is discrimination against HK residents. With that in mind, how can anyone say because there is x % of HK residents in the school, ESF is serving HK people the same way a DSS do.
作者: 田心 時間: 12-11-9 17:17 標題: 引用：FattyDaddy
I+KNOW+there+many+Chinese+lo
原帖由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-09 發表
FattyDaddy
I KNOW there many Chinese looking students in ESF. May be 70% of them are really HK resi ...
作者: 田心 時間: 12-11-9 17:18 標題: 引用：FattyDaddy
I+KNOW+there+many+Chinese+lo
原帖由 shadeslayer 於 12-11-09 發表
FattyDaddy
I KNOW there many Chinese looking students in ESF. May be 70% of them are really HK resi ...
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-9 18:58
田心 發表於 12-11-9 17:18
Hey, don't forget, HK residents include Indian, Pakistanis, etc. They are the minorities, many of th ...
There is a group of mainland Chinese immigrants who also don't care much about Cantonese, perhaps because they think Hongkong won't be speaking Cantonese for much longer. Thanks to 1997 again, this group is quite big too, I would guess another few hundred thousand there.
In short, Hongkong is a complex society with people of many different backgrounds.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-9 20:11 標題: 引用：Quote:田心+發表於+12-11-9+17:18+Hey,+don
原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-09 發表
Besides the non-Chinese minorities you mentioned, there is a group of local Chinese Hongkongers who ...
You've got to remember, we have this discussion because you said 70% of ESF students are HK residents, therefore ESF is already serving HK residence like a DSS. I am saying this statement is not correct because no DSS has an admission criteria that de-prioritize Cantonese speaking HK residents who form 95% of HK population. ESF close the door to the majority of HK residents. Isn't that a fact? HK is a Cantonese speaking city and a school closes the door to Cantonese speaking people and you call that serving HK residents the same as DSS?
ESF has a special role in the colonial times and it was a valid reason. That role is not required anymore now that we are 15 years after handover. I am not saying we pull the subvention now. I am merely saying we need to review ESF's long term role and the funding associated to that old role, which apparently, is exactly what the government is doing.
It is easier for people to understand if you think of hospital and clinical services in HK. Hospital, like Education, is an important aspect of HK and is a huge money hog. All private hospitals render services to a lot of HK residents. Do they each deserve 300M subsidy? The more resources the better, right?
It is easy to say the more money the better and I the right thing to do. Or the more freedom the better and is the right things to do. Or the less tax the better and I the right thing to do.
Everybody want a piece of the tax payers money. Secondary schools want small class even though the "actual" benefit is unproven. Allowance for senior citizen; people want to have non-mean tested distribution of money.
HK need to spend money wisely.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-9 21:18
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-9 21:55 編輯
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-9 20:11
Cantonese speaking HK residents who form 95% of HK population. ESF close the door to the majority of HK residents. Isn't that a fact? ...
Nothing wrong with closing the door to the majority, the fact remains that ESF schools are serving local HK residents, as reflected in their student population, and that fact ALONE is enough to justify subvention.
ESF give preference to non-Cantonese speakers, so they may have closed their doors to YOU, but their doors would be open if you are willing to drop Cantonese. Just like a school for the blind may have closed their doors to YOU who are not blind, but you could poke your eyes out and open their doors. To YOU, not learning Cantonese may be as painful and as ludicrous as poking your eyes out, but for many, not learning Cantonese is no big deal. Granted, these people may not be the majority, just like blind people aren't the majority of the population, but that is no reason for a school for the blind not to to be subsidized. Since when have Hongkongers become so stingy and uptight and even xenophobic that they think only the Cantonese speaking majority of the population are entitled to benefits?
作者: 田心 時間: 12-11-9 21:56 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+FattyDaddy+於+12-11-9+21:29+
原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-09 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-9 21:55 編輯
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-9 22:51 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+FattyDaddy+於+12-11-9+21:55+
原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-09 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-9 21:55 編輯
Serving Hk is justification enough for subvention, i am sure you would _not_ object to the following:
Private schools:
Serving hK kids alone is justification for subvention. There are probably 100 private schools and other ISes. They are serving education needs of HK residents therefore each gets 300M. Total about 30B dollars.
Small class:
There are about 600k primary and secondary student in schools. Per head spending rise from 40k a year to 80k a year because of small class initiative. Since the schools are serving the needs of HK people, the total spending increase by 48B dollars.
Hospitals and clinics.
Serving the need of HK residents is enough justification of subvention. There are probably 50 hospitals and 2000 clinics. Hospital each gets 600M and clinics each gets 30M subsidy. That works out to be 90B dollars
I don't need to say other items like non mean tested allowance for elderly, the above 3 items is 168B dollars and I amuse you support tax payers to foot these bills. Remember more resource is a good thing. More freedom is a good thing.
We are again going around circle. Not very useful discussion but it is interesting to see the logic of other people. So long.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-9 23:22
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-10 01:46 編輯
shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-9 22:51
I have big problem for ESF closing the door to 95% of people of HK _AND_ somebody call that it is serving HK the same way a DSS does. ...
If I say a subsidized school for the visually impaired (e.g. Ebenezer School), which closes its doors to 95% of the people of HK who have healthy vision, is serving HK the same way as a DSS does, you would have a big problem with that?
Private schools - if they are serving HK residents primarily, they should be subsidized. However, many international schools do not serve HK residents, at least not primarily, their student population comprise mostly of citizens of their respective country.
Small classes - why not?
Hospitals - that is a different discussion altogether, I'm not going to waste time diverging into that.
Is the Hongkong government short of money? Do you know how much money they have got sitting idle in the form of US treasuries with annual interest yields of only a fraction of a percent? You fight for what is good, and if bringing good cost money, let the government officials work on it. Unless you happen to be a lazy government official who wants fat pay but no work, I don't see why you are worrying on behalf of the government.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-11-10 11:13
Unless someone is of the opinion that our society has no social responsibility to take care of the handicapped, no matter he is blind, mentally retarded or otherwise, the quote of subsidy for blind school is inappropriate and irrelevant The number of foreign handicapped students is not sufficient for the overseas organisation to set up a non-subsidised school for them.
Regarding ESF, no one would say that it should not receive subsidy if ESF admits all students of permanent residency. Or it does not adopt its discriminatory admission policy against those who speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters.
Why should we subsidise those 30% of non permanent residents who are admitted based on the discriminatroy policy against the permanent residents of Hong Kong. What is the reason behind such subsidy?
The 30% non permanent resident population would be sufficient for the overseas education organisation (such Harrows) to set up an IS for them.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-10 11:31
Shootastar 發表於 12-11-10 11:13
The 30% non permanent resident population would be sufficient for the overseas education organisation (such Harrows) to set up an IS for them...
So go for the voucher system, blast those god damn foreigners, who cares if people think Hongkongers have become so xenophobic and stingy that they can't tolerate a minority of foreigners in a SMALL number of their subsidized schools.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-11-10 11:42
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
Nobody said that Hong Kong people can't tolerate a minority of foreigners in a SMALL number of their subsidized schools. You purposely omit the last sentence made by me which is not conducive to a civilised argument, debate or discussion.
We tolerate a minority of foreigners in a SMALL number of their subsidized schools IF ESF does not adopt its discriminatory policy against the local residents who speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-10 11:59
Shootastar 發表於 12-11-10 11:42
IF ESF does not adopt its discriminatory policy against the local residents who speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters....
You are correct to say ESF discriminate against Cantonese speaking HK residents, i.e. YOU, but wrong to say they discriminate against HK residents.
So here is a philosophical question, do we think non-Cantonese speaking HK residents are not "truly" HK residents and thus should not enjoy benefits as those who do speak Cantonese? Are you saying Hongkong do not have obligations towards a certain part of the population who can't or choose not to learn Cantonese?
作者: Atticus 時間: 12-11-10 12:37 標題: 回覆：FattyDaddy 的帖子
Yawning... Please give it a rest, FattyDaddy. We all know you are the Great Defender of ESF.
Regarding your choice of using a school for the blind in your analogy reflects what kind of a person you are. I don't think anyone of sound mind would want to be blind by choice but those local Cantonese-speaking parents who decide not to let their kids speak Cantonese in an environment where 95% of the population speak the local dialect is definitely by choice and did it out of the mistaken belief that being Chinese but not knowing the Chinese language gives them superiority over other local Hong Kongers. Your blind school analogy is an insult to all those who are blind or with some other kind of disabilities. Shame on you.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-10 12:44
Atticus 發表於 12-11-10 12:37
mistaken belief that being Chinese but not knowing the Chinese language gives them superiority over other local Hong Kongers
Do you know ESF has a significant number of mainland Chinese students who don't bother with Cantonese? As far as "being Chinese" is concerned they think they are more Chinese than any Hongkonger.
I dished out insults? Shame on me? Now I never used that kind of language against anyone, you must be very aggravated, can't help you there
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-11-10 12:48
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-11-10 12:54 編輯
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
My comments are in red.
Sorry if you're in this group and feel discriminated against, it simply means ESF is NOT for YOU. But ESF is for HK residents, just not YOUR type of HK residents. [Since my kids speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters, ESF is not for me because of its discriminatory admission policy. It is still for me if ESF DOES NOT adopt its discriminatory admission policy .]
You are correct to say ESF discriminate against Cantonese speaking HK residents, i.e. YOU, but wrong to say they discriminate against HK residents. [Sorry, again you purposely mislead others by omitting the word "Hong Kong PERMANENT residents.]
So here is a philosophical question, do we think non-Cantonese speaking HK residents are not "truly" HK residents and thus should not enjoy benefits as those who do speak Cantonese? Are you saying Hongkong do not have obligations towards a certain part of the population who can't or choose not to learn Cantonese? [Please do not omit the word Permanent Residents. It makes the great difference. Hong Kong has no obligation to subsidise the non permanent residents if they are favored by discriminatory admission policy.
PLEASE DO NOT OMIT or TWIST the statements made by others It is not conducive to a civilised discussion.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-10 12:54
Shootastar 發表於 12-11-10 12:48
Sorry, again you purposely mislead others by omitting the word "Hong Kong PERMANENT residents..
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-11-10 12:56
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
We are talking about the admission of 30% of Non Permanent Residents Hong Kong who are subsided by public fund but have a favor by the discriminatory admission policy of ESF towards other permanent residents of Hong Kong who speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-10 12:59
Shootastar 發表於 12-11-10 12:56
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
We are talking about the admission of 30% of Non Permanent Residents Hong Ko ...
Have we become so xenophobic and stingy that we can't tolerate a minority (30%) of foreigners in a small number of our subsidized schools. Do feel free to say YES on that one.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-11-10 13:02
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
My position is very clear. If not, please read my earlier posts.
In any event, please not that I have no objection that subsidy is extended to the minority of 30% in ESF by public fund if ESF does not adopt its discriminatory admission policy against the local permanent residents who speaks Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-11-10 13:12
Shootastar 發表於 12-11-10 13:02
does not adopt its discriminatory admission policy against the local permanent residents who speaks Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 12-11-10 13:47 標題: 引用：Quote:Shootastar+發表於+12-11-10+13:02+d
原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-10 發表
HAHAHAHA, wonderful, so please explain how a discriminatory admission policy against local permanent ...
Seriously FattyDaddy, you think kids in ESF do not know Cantonese? Think again. Oh, you don't need to think again, you know, right?
The discriminatory rule was designed to give priority to British expats many years ago. It just does not apply any more. So is the subvention. i am lad the government is taking a sensible approach to this.
| 歡迎光臨 教育王國 (/) |
Powered by Discuz! X1.5 |