教育王國

標題: 續有家長反對加費英基明日解畫 [打印本頁]

作者: medocb52 時間: 08-6-17 23:07 標題: 續有家長反對加費英基明日解畫

[size=+1]續有家長反對加費英基明日解畫

逾三百名英基家長聯署，反對校方下學年加學費，英基本周會與家長會面作出回應。

　　(星島日報報道)逾三百名英基學校協會的家長日前聯署，反對校方下學年加學費，昨日再有逾二十名家長加入聯署行動。

　　除加學費外，部分家長亦對英基行政甚多不滿，如有屬下中學要求所有家長付出逾萬元購買手提電腦，卻只可於校內使用。英基將於明日及後日舉行諮詢會，回應家長的意見。

　　英基早前宣布，中小學的學費將於下學年分別調高百分之五及百分之七，近三年累積加幅達一成四及兩成三，逾三百名英基家長日前發起聯署，反對學校加學費，並已向立法會教育事務委員會申訴。聯署行動聯絡人楊德忠表示，昨日再接到二十多名家長的電郵，響應聯署行動，當中有家長已決定下學年轉校，但也有聯署表達不滿。

　　他又指，

家長對英基行政亦有不滿，如有南島學校的家長指，校方要求所有家長付出逾萬元，購買手提電腦讓學生作學習及做功課之用，以減輕學生書包重量，但電腦只能於學校使用。有家長亦指，港島學校為讓教師參與國際文憑課程（IB）的培訓，逢周三均提早一小時下課，學生整學年便損失數十小時的課時。

　　楊德忠續稱，英基近年把不少課程外判，如性教育課程、科學活動等過往屬免費的活動，現時須收取數十元費用，「學校亦無講清楚情況，家長以為是額外課程，但原來不參加，學生那堂便無課可上，要到電腦室玩」。他指將約見教育局官員表達意見。

　　英基發言人重申，校方在加學費前經過廣泛諮詢，而校方本周將舉行兩場諮詢會，回應家長的關注事項。他並呼籲，家長若對學校行政有不滿，可通過現有渠道作反映，並應指出具體事實及證據，讓校方能作出跟進。

2008-06-17

作者: fitmum 時間: 08-6-17 23:34

原文章由 medocb52 於 08-6-17 23:07 發表
續有家長反對加費英基明日解畫逾三百名英基家長聯署，反對校方下學年加學費，英基本周會與家長會面作出回應 ...

ESF has never listened and they even claimed they never received any complaints on fee rise. Shame on them. Complaints were even filed last year by different parents. Some did not write to them directly but were posted on SCMP last year. This time we try to organise it better and we're seeing some reaction.

For the parents who want to speak out, there's still chance cause this is a long battle.

作者: fitmum 時間: 08-6-17 23:42

原文章由 medocb52 於 08-6-17 23:07 發表
續有家長反對加費英基明日解畫逾三百名英基家長聯署，反對校方下學年加學費，英基本周會與家長會面作出回應 ...

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-19 07:15

They have more than enough funds to cover the increase in costs due to inflation and cannot justify the capital expenditure at all! Very poor financial management!

英基家長抨「投資」無回報 (星島) 06月 19日星期四 05:30AM
(綜合報道)

(星島日報報道)英基學校協會計畫於九月新學年，連續第三年調高學費，在逾三百名家長聯署反對下，英基昨舉行家長會「解畫」。行政總監杜茵妮承認英基下學年會有四千萬盈餘，但面對教師加薪、過去五年又被政府削資逾三千萬元，強調只要通脹持續，英基仍然面對財政壓力，未來將要再加學費。

　　暗示年年加學費

　　家長則批評，英基把學校當生意，利用學費投資興建私立獨立學校，但家長卻無分毫回報。

　　英基昨舉行家長諮詢會，行政總監杜茵妮與財務總監Robert Bennett向約見的四十名家長解釋加學費原因，雙方激辯近兩小時，期間火藥味甚濃，有家長激動指：「我的三個子女都讀英基，每個月一半人工都用來交學費，他們不可離開英基，因我無錢讀國際學校，又不能入主流學校，這是否逼我回澳洲？」

　　有家長批評，英基利用學費投資於轄下ESF Educational Services（ESL）的兩所私立獨立學校，但學生全無得益，「講到好像做生意般，但家長給錢學校投資，就完全無回報。」

　　杜茵妮解釋，英基向ESL提供的建校撥款屬借貸，須計算利息，由二千年至今約撥出二億四千萬元。她坦言，興建私校是她上任前的管理層決定，由於目前有大量學生輪候英基學位，有必要建新校。

　　發起三百名家長聯署反對加學費的家長楊德忠於會後表示，校方解釋未能令家長滿意，他們會要求教育局介入。記者蔡瑤

作者: bbjan 時間: 08-6-19 14:40

we must speak out and act.

作者: bbsweet 時間: 08-6-20 12:17

o甘RC既家長又可以點呀！是不是由得佢o地加呢

作者: Wingba 時間: 08-6-20 14:21

My girl is studying in RC and the fee will be raised to HKD6,800 a month in the coming academic year.

No one wants any fee increase but it is equally absurd in refusing any increase amidst high inflation.

I am not aware that ESF pours a lot of its resources into ESF Educational Ltd. Neither do I know that RC has to pay back the funding with interest. Perhaps someone can share what exactly is the financial arrangement between ESF and RC and DC?

I am not a civil servant and every dollar of my girl's school fee is paid by me not the tax payers.

I am also very sensitive to school fee increases. But I remember a saying that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. The maximum increase of school fee should be the same as inflation rate. Of course, the lower, the better.

ESF should pay more attention to financial management especially the RoI of its funding. If it can achieve 50% of what Harvard did in managing its asset we should not be worried about fee increase.

Please share your thoughts, insights, opinions and most importantly, insider information, if any.

作者: play 時間: 08-6-20 15:38

ESF finances to face scrutiny by officials

Miranda Shek

Friday, June 20, 2008

Education chiefs are to examine the financial plans of the besieged English Schools Foundation before they decide on the organization's application to increase tuition fees. The Education Bureau admitted yesterday that it was alarmed by the recent row between the ESF and parents who have accused the organization of channeling money into its private independent schools - Discovery College and Renaissance College. In a written reply to The Standard, the bureau said it "will not approve ESF's investment plans per se, but will look at its financing plans including investment in capital projects in the context of its overall budget when examining its fee proposal."

[img]http://203.80.0.221/openx-2.4.6/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=88&campaignid=56&zoneid=4&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestandard.com.hk%2Fnews_detail.asp%3Fpp_cat%3D11%26art_id%3D67495%26sid%3D19447192%26con_type%3D1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestandard.com.hk&cb=442f06cb5a[/img]

Officials refused to elaborate but said the government provided ESF primary schools with HK$115 million in subsidies, or HK$20,500 per student in 2007/08. For secondary schools, the government's subsidies amounted to HK$176 million, or HK$28,480 for each student. In meetings held with ESF management on Wednesday and last night, parents repeatedly asked for an explanation as to why the school had poured HK$80 million of its reserves to fund the building of private independent schools. They said the investment plans did not benefit their children. ESF chief executive Heather Du Quesnay said the organization needed to "have a vision for the future, not just for the current day." But this failed to appease parents. The ESF wants fees to rise by 7 percent to HK$58,100 per year at primary schools and 5 percent to HK$89,250 at secondaries. Hong Kong Education Policy Concern Group chairman Mervyn Cheung Man-ping called for transparency and a clearer mechanism to deal with tuition fee increase applications in ESF and directly subsidized schools. "The ESF has enjoyed privileged treatment from the Education Bureau and it receives 30 percent of its funding from the government. The bureau should have stronger representation on the ESF's governing board," he said. Albert T Yeung, whose two children have been attending ESF schools for 10 years, urged the bureau to seriously monitor the ESF's governance. "The government has failed to monitor the ESF, and it has been greatly unfair to our children as subvention to ESF students has decreased despite skyrocketing inflation in recent years."

作者: JJ_Mom 時間: 08-6-20 16:10 標題: Where did the subsidies HK$20,500 per student in 2007/08 go?

RC primary student (without subsidy) will be paying $6,800 per month per head. Subsidised ESF primary student will be paying $5,810 per month....the difference is $990 per head.

Subsidised ESF student will be paying $990 less than the two non-subsidised schools whereas the gov't has granted $2,050 per month per head (assuming the 2007/08 figure unchanged). Where did the $1,060 per month per head of subsidy go?????? Parents of the subsidised ESF students are paying $10,600 more than they should in a year.

This doesn't make sense at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

作者: daydream 時間: 08-6-20 16:18

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: JJ_Mom 時間: 08-6-20 17:10

Quoting info from the Discovery College web site....."there is no recurrent annual grant being provided to the new school by the HKSAR Government, i.e. student places are not ‘sub-vented' in the way that other ESF schools are. As a result, Discovery College is operated by ESF Educational Services Limited, a part of ESF."

Without the subvention, and with lower "recurrent resources available"....this school managed to have the campus built with "minimised obstruction of sea views", "Gymnasium, Sports Hall, Performing Arts Centre, Swimming Pool, Drama Studios etc." and "the primary students having access to specialist facilities, such as the laboratories and workshops and to other major amenities like the information resource center/library, gymnasium, swimming pool, performing arts center and the cafeteria."

Oh yeah.....with the existing allocation methdology of the subvention, some private school students gets much more than they paid for........and others pay more and get less?

作者: daydream 時間: 08-6-20 17:26

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-20 18:44 標題: 回覆 #1 daydream 的文章

ESF Centre also administers /manages RC and DC, yet no recurring overhead cost of the Centre is allocated to RC/ DC. All ESF Centre cost is paid by parents of ESF schools. Besides, the funds loaned to RC and DC is charged at a very low interest rate (HIBOR+1%? I did not remember exactly). The funds came from school fees of ESF schools in the past years. There is no service fee paid back to ESF.

Teacher-student ratio: 1:30 in ESF primary, but 1:26 in RC,

Re Fees - ESF primary is only $1K (per month) lower than RC, and for secondary, they are even almost the same ($9K per month)!!

So RC's students are enjoying more resources in terms of teachers' ratio, campus facilities and ESF mgt Centre.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-20 21:53 編輯 ]

作者: fitmum 時間: 08-6-21 00:51

Please help me to clarify cause I'm very confused with these figures now.

During the meetings (18th and 19th), the finance guy from ESF stated the govt subvention for '07-'08 is $17,000 per primary student. That means each ESF is charging each primary student $54,300 + $17,000 = $71,300/year but RC is charging only $68,000/year.

But on this quote, subvention is $20,500/student. How did this discrepancy occur?

Isn't it rediculous ESF students are paying more than PIS?

原文章由 play 於 08-6-20 15:38 發表
ESF finances to face scrutiny by officials

Miranda Shek

Friday, June 20, 2008

Education chiefs are to examine the financial plans of the besieged English Schools Foundation before they decide on ...

作者: Twolovelyboys 時間: 08-6-21 05:13

I will be sending my son to a PIS school this autumn and like any normal human being I would like to pay as least as possible for school fees.

We currently live in the UK and I alway say to myself how lucky the people of HK are for having subsidy/subvention  for private international school.  Here in the UK the fess for an average level international school is about HK$150,000pa with some top level elite private school being above $300,000pa.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand ESF was set up because HK was a former British colony and the subvention was used to provide assistance to expatriates living in Hong Kong for a "modern liberal education" .  After 1997 with HK now under 'Chinese rule' and the majority of expats returning to their home country (and as I read in some web acticles the majority of ESF students are Chinese HK residents), its might  be time to stop the subvention altogether.  Maybe that will stop all this bickering about "How ESF students fees/subvention are used to in subsidising PIS schools".

Another way of looking at it is this, my son speaks little chinese and was offered an interview and a place at Shatin Junior School within a couple of months after his application.  I decided not to accept the offer because of the location and decided to let my son go to an "ESF" run PIS School.  By turning down the offer I am now having to pay and extra HK$10,000pa for my son's education but at the same time free up a school place for a "would be ESF student".  Does that mean the parent of the "would be ESF student" should thank me because I've given up the school place for them and subsidies HK$10,000 of my money so that their son could attend SJS.

There is always two sides to an argument .  ESF students are paying $HK54,3000 and RC students are paying HK$68,000, I may not be good at maths but logic tells me HK$68,000 is greater than HK$54,300, so how can one say ESF students are paying more than PIS.

I think people should not take things for granted and thank their lucky stars for being able to live in hk and pay one of the lowest fees in the world for private international education.

作者: iamfine 時間: 08-6-21 07:55

原文章由 Twolovelyboys 於 08-6-21 05:13 發表
I will be sending my son to a PIS school this autumn and like any normal human being I would like to pay as least as possible for school fees.

We currently live in the UK and I alway say to myself ...

Thanks Twolovelyboys for such reasoned arguments. Welcome back to Hong Kong.

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. It is as simple as that. I do not want to sound mean or arrogant, but the fact remains that internaional schools and private independent schools are relatively inexpensive in Hong Kong. Check the rates elsewhere. I am currently paying almost GBP7,800 per school term (there are 3 terms in a year) for my son's education in the UK. One of my friends who has been seconded to Shanghai is spending over $HK$15,000 on her son education (primary) there. I am not an ESF parent and have no idea how good or bad ESF is managing its finance, but I for one feel happy that there are ESF schools here.

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-21 09:49

This is not a topic to compare fee with UK schools.  Different countries have different systems.

We are discussing on the use of ESF school fees to build more and more independent private schools without reasonable return to ESF, increase of fees by 23% in 3 years while inflation rate in these 3 years is far below this!  Besides, bulk of increase will be going to IT expenses, recruitment of more HR and accounting staff, dental scheme of staff, just only a small part of it is for employment of EAs for year 3.  Is it really necessary and reasonable?

After channeling $240M to RC and DC in the last 2 years, ESF will obviously say that the increase in the next few years will have to be a lot more when they redevelop KJS, KGV and Island School .  The funding of redevelopment or investment in PIS should not mainly come from school fees, they should be financed by endowment and/or other financial arrangement such as sponsorship, alumni fundings etc.  This is a common practice in many other schools in HK or in other countries.  Would it be too easy a job for the management to just ask existing parents to pay more and more whenever they need more funds?

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-21 09:55 編輯 ]

作者: fitmum 時間: 08-6-21 12:19

Very funny a lot of people see ESF as JUST a private international school serving rich expats.

ESF is set up as a charitable educational organisation to provide affordable English education to non-Chinese speaking children in HK.  Many families are just hard-working middle class that don't drive expensive European cars or stay at 5-star hotels on vacations.  Don't just think everybody is from UK; some are from East Asia also.  For the really rich people, they won't pick ESF cause the facilities are not nice enough.  Most buildings are very old and even toilets stink.

Don't middle class families deserve to enjoy subsidy from the govt?  We all pay our dues too.

We are asking ESF to control their spending.  By reading their budgeting reports, it takes no expert to see there r lots of spooky things and that's why we ask questions and help from the govt to intervene (because ESF management is a stone wall).

原文章由 Twolovelyboys 於 08-6-21 05:13 發表
I will be sending my son to a PIS school this autumn and like any normal human being I would like to pay as least as possible for school fees.

We currently live in the UK and I alway say to myself ...

作者: hhy2007 時間: 08-6-21 15:12

The purpose for ESF to invest in RC and DC is to generate revenues for itself. ESF parents should thank RC and DC for being ESF's cash cows.

As to the subvention, considering the fact that ESF parents don't pay more taxes than PIS parents, and the fact that ESF students are not superior than other students in HK, why do ESF students have the privilege of being entitled to the subvention?

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-21 15:32

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-21 15:12 發表
The purpose for ESF to invest in RC and DC is to generate revenues for itself. ESF parents should thank RC and DC for being ESF's cash cows.

As to the subvention, considering the fact that ESF pare ...

Absolutely wrong. See how much is given to ESL and how much is given back as quoted below. If treat it as a business, it is definitely running at a huge loss. Have you read any financials before saying this?

英基行政總裁認從未減薪
家長質疑教師增薪非加學費主因

2008年6月21日

【明報專訊】英基學校協會家長反對校方加學費，風波愈鬧愈大。有家長質疑，英基合約教員2003至04年度需減薪一成，至今薪金仍未追回03年前水平，但教師減薪同時，部分管理層卻未受影響，英基學校協會行政總裁杜茵妮更承認，自己從未被減薪。
英基學校協會前晚就學費提高的問題，與30多名家長舉行第二場諮詢會。對於杜茵妮一直強調，加學費的主因是教師薪酬不斷提升，家長聯署發起人楊德忠卻指出，教師薪酬曾在03至04年度下調10%，近年雖加薪，但仍未回復當年水平。前晚諮詢會上杜茵妮被問及曾否減薪時，她直言包括自己在內的部分行政人員，從沒有被減薪，家長質疑，教師加薪並不是英基加學費主因。
另外，楊德忠又指出，英基未能解釋與其轄下投資機構ESF Educational Services(ESL)千絲萬縷的關係。ESL協助英基籌建轄下兩所私立獨立學校，並收取690萬元顧問費，但至今暫時回報僅220萬，ESL總監之位亦是杜茵妮兼任。楊德忠質疑，英基投資是否明智及有否牽涉利益關係，並指家長代表已約見教育局官員申訴。
兼任投資機構總監受質疑
英基學校協會傳訊總監郭彼德表示，所有問題已在諮詢會上解釋清楚。他說，杜茵妮04年入職，而受減薪影響的只限於03年或以前入職的員工，因此她從沒有被減薪。又指ESL是非牟利機構，負責協助英基籌劃各種課外活動，與英基有很多財政往來，「ESL協助英基投資興建兩所私立獨立學校，繳付顧問費是理所當然的。我們都一直強調，兩所私立獨立學校是長線投資，日後必有回報」。
教育局發言人則表示，會繼續留意事件，並鼓勵英基繼續與家長保持溝通。

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-21 15:34 編輯 ]

作者: Twolovelyboys 時間: 08-6-21 16:46

If that was  funny than this is even funnier a lot of people JUST seem to think everybody in the UK is Rich.

I do not drive an expensive european car but a ten year old Nissan.  I have never stayed in a five star hotel because they are too expensive in Europe.  My kids go to state school because I cannot afford for them to go private in UK.

AS you rightly said "ESF is ... a charitable ...organisation to provide ......education to........children in HK".  From this statement, I do not understand some parents view that  "ESF are channeling money to RC and DC......".  Being a charitable organisation, as long as the money used by ESF is helping the more people in HK to gain a better education (irrespective of their social class).

I myself is from a HK middle class family (and paid just as much taxes as anybody else whilst in HK) and have every right to enjoy subsidy from the govt.

The point of my dicussion is to highlight to parents of ESF students that they should not use the arguement that increase in ESF student fee is due "to funding for developement of PIS schools" but rather the increase is due to poor management of ESF.

I too will be writing on the online petetion against the 23% increase in ESF school fee (over the last 3 years because it is excessive, but at the same time I
Congratulate them for them effert in providing more English speaking school for the need of the HK people.

作者: Twolovelyboys 時間: 08-6-21 20:17

Seems you are contradicting yourself.

On one hand you say

"...not a topic to compare fee with UK schools.  Different countries have different systems."

but on the other hand you say

  " ...they should be financed by endowment and/or other financial arrangement such as sponsorship, alumni fundings etc.  This is a common practice in many other schools in HK or in other countries."

I not getting the point you are trying to make here.

It is selfish for parents who have already gotten their child into ESF school to say ".....funding of redevelopment or investment in PIS should not mainly come from school fees" because it does not benefit ESF students.   This is equivalent to saying why should the money from the 3 million HK people who pay taxe be used subsidise ESF schools because it does not benefit the 3 million taxpayers.

If you think about it, I count parents of ESF students to be lucky, the money given to PIS schools will be paid back with interest to ESF.  No doubt,  I do not expect ESF to pay back the taxpayers money used as subvention never mind the interest.

It may not directly affect parents with already have childrens in ESF school but the opening of PIS Schools have given an opportunity for the 2300 or so parents of new ESF students who may otherwise not have had an opportunity to go to ESF school.

Base on my above explaination, people can use "ESF's poor management" as an arguement about ESF school fee increase but anybody who uses the arguement that "ESF funding for the developement of PIS school" for the school fee increase would just go onto show how selfish he or she can be.

原文章由 WYmom 於 08-6-21 09:49 發表
This is not a topic to compare fee with UK schools. Different countries have different systems.

We are discussing on the use of ESF school fees to build more and more independent private schools w ...

作者: hhy2007 時間: 08-6-21 22:45

WYmom,

For such an educational development project as RC and DC, the ESF management must have calculated both the financial and economic returns on its investment for the whole project life. Losing money for the first a few years does NOY mean the overall financial return for the whole project lifetime would be negative. Furthermore, if you do the calculation, you will see the economic return on RC and DC investment must be higher.

As a receiver of government subventions, ESF has its social responsibility and obiligation to contribute back to the whole HK society. In this view, we, outsiders, would like to emphasize more the economic return on RC and DC investments.

I can fully understand your feeling about the fee increase at ESF, however, please try to understand the feeling of non-EFS parents and students. Blaming RC and DC investments for the ESF fee increase is narrow-minded indeed.

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-22 06:51

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-21 22:45 發表
WYmom,

For such an educational development project as RC and DC, the ESF management must have calculated both the financial and economic returns on its investment for the whole project life. Losing ...

hhy007 and Twolovelyboys,

I understand what you mean.  But in fact, PIS parents may not understand that the current accounting or financial treatments of PIS have a lot of impact on ESF's accounts and leads to ongoing increase in fees to ESF parents, which will not affect PIS parents at all.

If ESF reports the financials of ESL as subsidiary instead of a separate independent company, the overall income will look much better for ESF and they will have less excuses to ask parents to pay more and more.  It is the fact that the same group of people managing ESL and PIS, sharing the resources on cirriculum, activities, etc. but the accounting and financial treatments did not reflect the fact of "subsidiary structure" in cost sharing.  The loan interest is only a very small return and loan will be repaid in a very very long time.  So ESF parents bear all the cost.  PIS parents do not need to "contribute" to any future capital investments in other campus of KJS, KGV and IS, am I correct?

So it is really not about "selfishness", but more about discussing the misrepresentation of accounts of ESF to reflect the true picture.  I am always challenging about the illusion and the unnecessary items in the financials presented by ESF, not the decision to build the PIS.

If you look at their financial projection, they said that they have to spend about $400M+ for redeveloping each of the 3 campus (really doubt very much how much they have inflated the investment projections), so can you imagine how much more we have to pay in future?  The school fee will likely hike up above those of PIS soon! (Now the secondary fees is already same as PIS)

So for funding these projects, I suggest to raise funds from other means, just like the other schools (DGS, DBS...).  Parents pay a lot already for all ESF management and staff salaries, ESF Centre and school Campus overheads and recurrent cost, how can parents pay so much more to fund all these large capital projects?  Do you think PIS parents should contribute a part too?

If you really read the financials more carefully, they in fact have more than enough recurrent cash flow to cover their increase in costs and capital investments in the coming year, but they still keep increasing the fees with the reason of inflations, increase in salarys, etc. These are very common reasons to be used.  However, in fact teachers' salary has been cut to lower level, but not management's pay!  So there are a lot of hidden agenda in the financials!

I hope you all be more polite and calm in discussing all these issues instead of accusing us parents if you ARE a rational person.  The problem is with ESF management as they present their financials as if they are running PIS as a business, which is NOT the fact!

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 07:21 編輯 ]

作者: Twolovelyboys 時間: 08-6-22 09:40

PIS parents would off course share and contribute to the funding of future large capital projects by ESF, as long as the subvention recieved by ESF schools are shared with PIS schools.

AS mentioned in previous threads "government provided ESF primary schools with HK$115 million in subsidies. For secondary schools, the government's subsidies amounted to HK$176 million".

A simple calcualtions will indicate that in the next 3 years ESF schools will recieve HK$873million in subvention. This is more than double what ESF will spend on its capital project of HK$400million plus in the next 3 years.

I too hope you will be more polite and calm in discussing all these issues instead of accusing PIS schools of taking money away from ESF school as if you are a victim of some great injustice.

I agree with you that the problem is with ESF management but just leave PIS schools out of the arguement. AND just to show my politeness, PLEASE.

原文章由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 06:51 發表

hhy007 and Twolovelyboys,

I understand what you mean. But in fact, PIS parents may not understand that the current accounting or financial treatments of PIS have a lot of impact on ESF's accounts ...

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-22 10:48

原文章由 Twolovelyboys 於 08-6-22 09:40 發表
PIS parents would off course share and contribute to the funding of future large capital projects by ESF, as long as the subvention recieved by ESF schools are shared with PIS schools.

AS mentioned ...

The capital investment in the coming 3 projects is: $400+M times 3 = $1,200+M, not $400+M!!

The subvention has been decreased to $260+M in 2003, while the no. of students in ESF schools are increasing. Notwithstanding this, the ESF schools still invested $240M in PIS after 2003. ESF only emphasize on the Intangible return, and do not tell much about the Tangible return. I have said that I did not agree with their accounting treatment of the 2 new schools to be sheltered under a separate limited co. instead of as a subsidiary. It does not equal to any accuse on RC/DC schools themselves. The fault is with ESF financial management. Do you understand??

We are asking for justification for the fee increase. From the financials we see so far, there are a lot of problems which I have pointed out in previously messages. They said clearly that they want to avoid bank loans and rely mainly on reserves to fund all capital investments and further PIS.

Can you also please be more objective and focus on their financial management?

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 10:53 編輯 ]

作者: Wingba 時間: 08-6-22 14:02

Hi everyone,

Please calm down! I am grateful to learn more about the financial arrangement between ESF and the two PIS although I am still not that clear about the whole picture.

Nevertheless, the culprit seems to be the ESF management, prima facie.

One thing I would like to clarify is the teachers' salary has been trimmed but not the management. It seems not possible. From the above newspaper clippings the reason seem to be the date of joining. The present Chief Executive of ESF joined the band after salary reduction exercise? This is an important point before we can discuss/accuse whether it is any unfair treatment.

Secondly, we should be very careful in enlisting the help from the government. Mind you that after 1997 ESF
's status has been transforming/downgrading. The presence of an ENGLISH school foundation has become an eyesore amidst rising Chinese nationalism.

Getting a hand from the government is dangerous. With the departure of Arthur Li and Fanny Law ESF has a better chance to survive the storm. Having said that, I do not mean we should simply let it go without grilling the ESF management on something that they should be clear and responsible for.

Sometimes, you may not intend to stir up an argument but the use of words may result in people taking offence. As mentioned before I am a RC parent and I always think that I am not so lucky to enjoy the subsidy from the government but it is a choice that I made and I will follow the rule as I like my girl to study traditional Chinese instead of the rootless simplified Chinese.

I do have some bad feelings when some parents saying that PIS was draining the resources of ESF and the parents of other ESF were paying the price. But all parents have a choice and parents in ESF schools can put their kids in PIS and enjoy the "subsidy". But I talk to myself that if I were other ESF parents I might have the same feeling. So let's take a deep breath and calm down. Don't point fingers and try not to ask the government to intervene otherwise you will regret for it.

It is perfectly okay to ask ESF management to disclose more financial figures to support their move and a large scale campaign in asking alumni to raise funds should be conducted.

Some of ESF alumni are rich and famous like Victor Fung. I am not sure if Arthur Li is also a ESF alumni.

Cheers

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-22 16:43

原文章由 Wingba 於 08-6-22 14:02 發表
Hi everyone,

Please calm down! I am grateful to learn more about the financial arrangement between ESF and the two PIS although I am still not that clear about the whole picture.

Nevertheless, the ...

I think no matter how we object, it is very difficult to see changes in ESF mgt as we see in the past years.  That's why seeking help from govt may be the last resort.

It is at least good for us to see some of their financials and realise a bit more, though they only show what they want to.  They have been "well-known" in their financial mgt since 2003!

As a lot of parents normally put their 2 or 3 kids in the same school, the rapid increase over these few years has become a great burden.  If economic recession is coming soon as expected,  less wealthy parents are forced to quit and return to their home countries.  Have already known some of these cases.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 16:45 編輯 ]

作者: hhy2007 時間: 08-6-22 17:05

Wymom,

I read the ESF Auditor's Report for 2006 and 2007 financial years and the ESF's Explanatory Note for its support for PIS, which were all posted on ESF website.
To my understanding, the followings are clear:

(1)
ESL pays ESF the overhead cost attributed to ESF's assistance to PIS schools.
This is proved by the 2006 & 2007 ESF financial reports and the Auditor's Reports.

(2)
ESL pays fees to ESF to cover the cost of ESF's investment plus a return equivalent to HIBOR+1% in the long run.
(3)
There is no cross subsidy between ESF and PIS schools.

You said making PIS schools to be independent accounting centers is harmful to ESF, while, if you look at the issue from the other perspective, you would see it's for the good of ESF, because ESF would just collect fees from ESL and not be accountable for any operating loss if occurred at PIS schools in the future.
In this view, PIS school parents are bearing higher risk of fee increase than ESF counterparts in the future.

As to the financial return, by nature, such educational development project should not have high return.
This is the common practice. More concerns should be focused on the economic return instead of the financial ROI.

You have the very right to push ESF management to improve their operating performance and efficiency.
However, the argument that ESF is sort of feeding PIS school is somehow emotional.

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-22 18:51

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-22 17:05 發表
Wymom,

I read the ESF Auditor's Report for 2006 and 2007 financial years and the ESF's Explanatory Note for its support for PIS, which were all posted on ESF website.
To my understanding, the follow ...

hhy2007,

Can you pls advise me the figures you refer to in your pt (1)? Do you mean one of the item in "other income" $54M in 06/07 which includes $32.2M from residential apartment rental, $4.2M donation, $8M interest income, and $9.4M miscellaneous income (do not know what it is)? Can you advise the % of sharing in overhead cost? I really cannot find it.

For interest income, it is stated in previous message to be 3-month HIBOR +1%.

We do not know the deal between ESF and ESL regarding their inter-fee bookings in case of operating profit or loss. Pls tell us if you know. But what I said is that if report it as subsidiary and as group accounts, it reflects the real structure better.

Thanks.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 19:53 編輯 ]

作者: hhy2007 時間: 08-6-22 20:01

WYmom,

To my understanding of the auditor's report, (correct me if I'm wrong), ESL paid ESF HKD 2.194M in 2007 and HKD 1.809M in 2006 for overhead cost. I figure this is in the category of "Miscellaneous Income" of the $59M of "Other income". As to the loan repayment and interest payment, it should be $3.908M in 2007. I don't know their repayment schedule, and therefore, can not break down this $3.908M.

If you want to have a clearer picture, I suggest you and other interested ESF parents talk with ESF's financial manager for a better explanation.

As to making PIS as independent cost center, it's understandable that ESF just want to collect the agreed amount of fees as a source of income, and doesn't want to finance ESL's operating if the later is not profitable.

In fact, I am in no position to defend for ESF. I read their reports, and got my view. If you have other info to correct me, please do. Thank you.

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-22 20:43

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-22 20:01 發表
WYmom,

To my understanding of the auditor's report, (correct me if I'm wrong), ESL paid ESF HKD 2.194M in 2007 and HKD 1.809M in 2006 for overhead cost. I figure this is in the category of "Miscellan ...

Thanks for your reply. But also in 2007, ESF paid ESL 6.957M as consultation fee in return. So net-net still it is ESF paying ESL $4.763M in 2007.

Their relationship is really very complicated and all inter-related, so they are really not independent cos!

Anyway, we can see that ESF has more than enough cash surplus to cover their required increase, which is not related to ESL.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 21:32 編輯 ]

作者: almom 時間: 08-6-23 18:01

Parents, calm down and think about the whole situation again.

I am not good at bookkeeping or accounting. But I know that you pay the same amount (or almost the same amount?) for the same t-shirt at Giordano no matter which shop you are going to buy from. But customers in an old branch in TST would not blame customers of the new shop in Mongkok, just because a lot of money has been spent on furnishing the new shop.

Yes. Just within these 3 years, we have 2 new schools PIS's. That is a huge amount of money has been spent on constructing the campus, buying new computers, stocking up with chairs and tables etc. But as far as the book is concerned, these are all assets of ESF. RC and DC parents get NOTHING other than educational services. All we get is 10+ months of education, just like the rest of ESF schools. OK, I admit that there are things that are not exactly like other ESF schools. We have newer computers, we have newer tables. But the thing is, at some point down the road, you are going to get your share of "new stuffs". And honestly, even amongst the ESF schools, you do not all have exactly the same hardware or facilities, do you?

RC and DC are unlikely going to spend any huge amount on upgrading the hardware in the near future. However, I am sure there will be money spent on other "older" ESF schools, refurnishing the building, buying newer computers, etc. When money is spent next year, or the next, with an ESF school, does it mean that we RC/DC parents will then have a chance to accuse ESF on spending more money on ESF schools than on PIS schools?

BTW, in case people forget, school fees are not the only income. There are also income generated by those after school activities taken place at different schools. Now are we also going to consider that income as well? And can any one tell me which school is making most money and which school is making least money? And.....

If I still remember it, around one year ago, a lot of parents kept reminding people that RC/DC were school set up to generate money for ESF/ESL. I am a bit lost here. Why are people making totally opposite comments at different times? Are people making different comments at different times merely for their own convenience?

Parents (ESF, RC or DC) are paying the fees for what they want to get, ie educational services. We all have rights to challenge the management of how they spend the money. In the respect, we all agree that ESF/ESL do have a reputation of being a big spender. If parents want to vent the flames, accuse the group of the way they spend the money.

When you think about the whole picture, I think all parents of ESF, RC and DC have put in a proportion of the school fees into the management team. So WE ARE ALL subsidising the ESF/ESL management team. In a way, we are "losers".

Parents, please lock your target before you fire. And do not shoot at your own comrades. Now, your enemies are larghing.

作者: bbjan 時間: 08-6-23 20:18

wingba,

TOTALLY AGREE with what u said:

ESF should pay more attention to financial management especially the RoI of its funding. If it can achieve 50% of what Harvard did in managing its asset we should not be worried about fee increase.

作者: hhy2007 時間: 08-6-23 23:13

Wymom,

That's not the proper way to interpreter data, and neither should we calculate net benefit in the way you mentioned.
The consulting fee received by ESL from ESF and the overhead cost paid by ESL to ESF are priced in accordance with market value.
If ESF don't use ESL's consulting service, it still has to subcontract it to other consulting entity and pay the bill.

If you still insist on your belief that the current school fee increase at ESF is mainly caused by PIS establishment, that's fine.
But, please bear in mind that there quite a few people out there don't buy your view.

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-24 06:13

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-23 23:13 發表
Wymom,

That's not the proper way to interpreter data, and neither should we calculate net benefit in the way you mentioned.
The consulting fee received by ESL from ESF and the overhead cost paid by ...

How do you know if $2M overhead fee (don't even know what's the real total overhead?) and $7M consultancy fee were priced at market value or not? How do you know their justification? You can say that only if you are the ESF/ESL management, are you?

I did not insist that PIS is the only problem, I have pointed out various financial management problems re raising funds, justification of increase in expenses, increase in management headcounts, the large cash surplus accumulated... I have said that the focus should be on their financial management, but you just keep on defending on the single issue on PIS. It is quite obvious where you come from, as a NEW member. If you support ESF management so much or actually you are one of them, don't waste your time here, do stand out to explain the missing details in front of parents officially. Pls provide more explanation with financials for parents and the govt officially. We look forward to that. Thank you.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-24 06:27 編輯 ]

作者: Twolovelyboys 時間: 08-6-24 07:25

WYmom,

OK I got my sum wrong from the ESF presentation the capital investment is HK$1047M but you must remember it is over 7 years.  In that time ESF would have recieved (HK$260M*7) = HK$1820M, which still leaves HK$770M.  What do PIS school get nothing from the government and at the same time PIS school have to pay back whatever is owned to ESF.

I admit my wording can be over the top sometimes this is because I have very strong views about including PIS school into the equation when discussing ESF school fees increase.  The reason for this strong view is very simple, every time it is included in the equation, it justs gives more excuse for ESF/ESL to incease fees of PIS schools in future.

No offence to anybody but comments like

"why is the ESF school fee higher than PIS" will only give an excuse for ESF/ESL management to increase the PIS fees to the same level rather than decrease ESF fees.

"ESF Centre also administers /manages RC and DC, yet  no recurring overhead cost of the Centre is allocated to RC/ DC", ESF respose would be "Ah yes why didn't we charge them, we should do that next year".

"RC's students are enjoying more resources in terms of teachers' ratio, campus facilities and ESF mgt Centre" - ESF responsed will be "Great another excuse to charge more"

As you rightly said "As a lot of parents normally put their 2 or 3 kids in the same school." I will be one such parent in a couple of years time and still trying to sort out the finance.

原文章由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 10:48 發表

The capital investment in the coming 3 projects is: $400+M times 3 = $1,200+M, not $400+M!!

The subvention has been decreased to $260+M in 2003, while the no. of students in ESF schools are increas ...

作者: WYmom 時間: 08-6-24 08:44

原文章由 Twolovelyboys 於 08-6-24 07:25 發表
WYmom,

OK I got my sum wrong from the ESF presentation the capital investment is HK$1047M but you must remember it is over 7 years. In that time ESF would have recieved (HK$260M*7) = HK$1820M, which ...

The funds required is not equally spread in 7 years.  The capital investment will be $39M only in 2008, $113M in 2009 and go high up to $297M in 2010, $267M more in 2011 and more afterwards.  So the increase in fees in the next 2 to 3 years will be even more terrible if they are arleady asking 7%+ increase in 08 when the capital needs is only $39M.  How much higher the increase should we expect in 09/10 then?

They threaten in the news today to cut the Chinese program instead of cutting those unecessary administration cost on employing many more HR /accounting staff, their new increase of 15% in cash allowance, or their nice-to-have dental benefits.  So you can see what kind of educationists they are!

Yes, I understand your worries.  Just that these have hit us first before hitting you.  Not sure if you are aware, they are also gradually shifting a lot of payments to parents.  They also delete the discussion forum we used to have in the past to stop communication among parents.  So we can have no choice but accept the more and more increase every year and onwards.  So maybe parents have to really keep an eye on them rather than just carefree as before unless you are very rich and don't bother.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-24 10:27 編輯 ]

作者: KaKaYa 時間: 08-6-24 16:45 標題: 英基不加費或削中文課程

英基不加費或削中文課程

英基上周舉行兩場簡介會，解釋加學費的原因，但未能說服家長。

　　(星島日報報道)英基學校協會計畫下學年調高學費，引來逾三百名家長聯署反對。英基行政總監杜茵妮警告，若加學費計畫胎死腹中，校方可能被逼取消中文課程，長遠影響學生的普通話能力，亦未能向教師加薪，引致教師大量流失，影響教學質素。

　　英基上周舉行兩場簡介會，解釋加學費的原因，但未能說服家長。英基行政總監杜茵妮接受《英文虎報》訪問時坦言，若政府否決其加學費申請，校方已沒有後備計畫，教學服務勢必被削。

　　她形容，中文課程對學生來說「不能缺少」，但若英基未能加學費，校方將被逼取消該課程，長遠對學生有極大影響，「愈來愈多工作要求僱員懂普通話，因此不懂說的學生日後在本港市場競爭，將會吃虧」。

　　她續指，加學費主要是為教師加薪約百分之四點八，以及將租金津貼提升約一成半，以挽留教師，否則將有大批教師流失，屆時學校的教學質素勢必下降。

　　對於家長指英基坐擁五億元儲備，杜茵妮解釋：「儲備是協會於過去四十年來累積的資產，只是帳面數字，不是現金。」她並反駁以學費投資私立獨立學校之說，指英基於九九年決定建校，二億四千萬元的建校費屬一筆過投資，而兩所私立獨立學校將分二十年向英基歸還撥款及利息。

　　家長對英基可能取消中文課程則意見分歧，兒子就讀沙田小學的本地家長認為，學校應不惜一切保留中文課程，寧願每年多付數千元學費；來自印度的家長John Mampilli則指，取消中文課程影響不大。

2008-06-24

作者: bbjan 時間: 08-6-24 18:49

is there any govt dept or offical in charge of checking the ESF account every yr? surely the ESF mgt is asking too much. The fee increase should not be higher than the inflation rate. Did they decrease or freeze the fee when the economy was not gd few yrs back?

作者: Twolovelyboys 時間: 08-6-24 19:38

WYmom,

I would like to make a point that "this has not hit the parents of ESF school first" as the increase in fees for the primary section for 2008-09 is also 7% same as ESF school.

I anticpate that in the fee increase in future for PIS school will be in line with ESF school and will affect all of us.

I will probably make the same arguement with similar principal as yourself, "why is fee increase the same as ESF with no forseeable capital investment in PIS school". No doubt PIS school management will have explain by argueing that we need to pay back loan to ESF therefore have to increase fee or some other excuse to increase fee. So as far as I'm concern we are in the same boat.

In future I may make an arguement about bad management of PIS school but I would not make an agruement about paying back the loan to ESF because I understand ESL and ESF have an agreement which we have to keep.

原文章由 WYmom 於 08-6-24 08:44 發表

The funds required is not equally spread in 7 years. The capital investment will be $39M only in 2008, $113M in 2009 and go high up to $297M in 2010, $267M more in 2011 and more afterwards. So the ...

作者: Twolovelyboys 時間: 08-6-24 20:19

Should clarify the increase at RC is also 7% for the 2008-2009 for the primary section.

原文章由 Twolovelyboys 於 08-6-24 19:38 發表
WYmom,

I would like to make a point that "this has not hit the parents of ESF school first" as the increase in fees for the primary section for 2008-09 is also 7% same as ESF school.

I anticpate tha ...

作者: hhy2007 時間: 08-6-24 22:24 標題: 回覆 #36 WYmom 的文章

Wymom,

What's wrong with being a new member? You don't have to challenge me regarding where I am from. I am a parent of other IS school than ESF or RC or DC. So what?

I just think it's not right to spread such irresponsible accusation that the current fee increase at ESF is mainly due to the investment in PIS schools. Such kind of remarks would only provoke hatred among parents/students in concern, and will do no good for solving the problem.

作者: Twolovelyboys 時間: 08-6-24 22:51

HHY2007 I totally agree with you on this.

I'm a new member and I've found this site very useful in gaining information and deciding which IS to choose, (believe it or not I even found information from WYmom to be useful).

If every long serving members has this atittude that NEW member should not give their views or present their arguement than what is the point of this website forum. IF this continues than at the end of the day there is a danger that long serving members will present their information and new members can only listen and believe everything that is said.

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-24 22:24 發表
Wymom,

What's wrong with being a new member? You don't have to challenge me regarding where I am from. I am a parent of other IS school than ESF or RC or DC. So what?

I just think it's not right ...

作者: KaKaYa 時間: 08-7-23 17:58 標題: 英基行政總裁認從未減薪

英基行政總裁認從未減薪家長質疑教師增薪非加學費主因
(明報)6月21日星期六 05:32
【明報專訊】英基學校協會家長反對校方加學費，風波愈鬧愈大。有家長質疑，英基合約教員2003至04年度需減薪一成，至今薪金仍未追回03年前水平，但教師減薪同時，部分管理層卻未受影響，英基學校協會行政總裁杜茵妮更承認，自己從未被減薪。

英基學校協會前晚就學費提高的問題，與30多名家長舉行第二場諮詢會。對於杜茵妮一直強調，加學費的主因是教師薪酬不斷提升，家長聯署發起人楊德忠卻指出，教師薪酬曾在03至04年度下調10%，近年雖加薪，但仍未回復當年水平。前晚諮詢會上杜茵妮被問及曾否減薪時，她直言包括自己在內的部分行政人員，從沒有被減薪，家長質疑，教師加薪並不是英基加學費主因。

另外，楊德忠又指出，英基未能解釋與其轄下投資機構ESF Educational Services（ESL）千絲萬縷的關係。ESL協助英基籌建轄下兩所私立獨立學校，並收取690萬元顧問費，但至今暫時回報僅220萬，ESL總監之位亦是杜茵妮兼任。楊德忠質疑，英基投資是否明智及有否牽涉利益關係，並指家長代表已約見教育局官員申訴。

兼任投資機構總監受質疑

英基學校協會傳訊總監郭彼德表示，所有問題已在諮詢會上解釋清楚。他說，杜茵妮04年入職，而受減薪影響的只限於03年或以前入職的員工，因此她從沒有被減薪。又指ESL是非牟利機構，負責協助英基籌劃各種課外活動，與英基有很多財政往來，「ESL協助英基投資興建兩所私立獨立學校，繳付顧問費是理所當然的。我們都一直強調，兩所私立獨立學校是長線投資，日後必有回報」。

教育局發言人則表示，會繼續留意事件，並鼓勵英基繼續與家長保持溝通。

作者: Cara2006 時間: 08-9-27 10:32

其實讀得國際學校，係唔係都應該有 D 預算呢？
加 7 % 學費後，如果你覺得經濟情形開始有問題，我覺得就代表你當初計得條數太盡。
國際學校，唔係平民學校。香港有免費教育，唔介意比少少錢，可以揀直資，私校，平均都係三幾千學費。我就知有外籍孩子就讀本地主流學校，我唔信華人孩子唔得。
其實香港大部份小朋友都係讀緊本地主流學校；當初，點解你覺得唔想比小朋友讀本地主流學校？
世界就係咁，有 D 野價錢大眾化 D ，有 D 就係貴 D。覺得 BENZ 貴，買 TOYOTA 囉；覺得 DIOR 貴，買 BOSSINI 囉。
通街都係 TOYOTA，你個仔真係咁矜貴，要 BENZ 先得？
學校冇錢，你估第一樣 CUT 乜？當然唔係 ESF 高層的福利和人工啦；CUT 的，當然係前線教職員的人工，甚至清潔和部安員等的人工。國際學校老師最浮動，如果有另一間 OFFER 更好，佢地會走。老師都係人，要生活，人家人工好 D 點解唔走？
最後，損失的係邊個？
當然，唔係話學校可以無理地，無止境的加學費啦，不過如果參考通脹等因素，我覺得 7% 尚算可以接受。
如果學校真係咁好，作為家長，我就一定接受。

加學費事件，發生在金融機構巨浪之前，當時面出面人力市場，住屋市場，一直都係向上，羊毛出在羊身上，家長當然要乘受加幅啦。

無錢就唔好學人買 BENZ。
如果比唔起，唔該轉校。

最後，你地校內問題，唔該自己同學校傾，
傾唔掂，去 LEGCO 又好，報警又好，PO 上 BK 邊個幫到你？
成日話外面 D 人攻擊你地 ESF，不如諗下自己 ESF 家長的言行先啦，下下唔滿意學校，就 PO 上黎 BK 叫罵，家長質素真係好有問題。

作者: jui 時間: 08-9-29 16:16

原帖由 Cara2006 於 08-9-27 10:32 發表
其實讀得國際學校，係唔係都應該有 D 預算呢？
加 7 % 學費後，如果你覺得經濟情形開始有問題，我覺得就代表你當初計得條數太盡。
國際學校，唔係平民學校。香港有免費教育，唔介意比少少錢，可以揀直資，私校，平均都係三幾千學費。我 ...

到期喇!! 仲唔快 D 去覆診

作者: nonohi 時間: 08-9-29 22:39

原帖由 Cara2006 於 08-9-27 10:32 發表
其實讀得國際學校，係唔係都應該有 D 預算呢？
加 7 % 學費後，如果你覺得經濟情形開始有問題，我覺得就代表你當初計得條數太盡。
國際學校，唔係平民學校。香港有免費教育，唔介意比少少錢，可以揀直資，私校，平均都係三幾千學費。我 ...

作者: yellowbird 時間: 08-9-30 13:22

原帖由 Cara2006 於 08-9-27 10:32 發表
其實讀得國際學校，係唔係都應該有 D 預算呢？
加 7 % 學費後，如果你覺得經濟情形開始有問題，我覺得就代表你當初計得條數太盡。
國際學校，唔係平民學校。香港有免費教育，唔介意比少少錢，可以揀直資，私校，平均都係三幾千學費。我 ...

唉! 你病得咁嚴重, 真係為你屋企人難過!

歡迎光臨教育王國 (/)