TOP TEN PRIMARY - VOTE

leschelems

I am interested in your interesting case.  And also  your admired district band 1 primary school and new DSS school.  Mind giving us a hint?

[quote]

hi all,

I want to share one interesting case about 名牌學校. I know in some so-called traditional famous schools (with long time Band 1 honour), their teachers are quite lazy and don't teach more, don't do extra works in academic and seldom care their students, however, the test & exam of these school are very very difficult. But most students still can get good result. The students are still outstanding in many area. Why? Is that so funny?

The main reasons are....1. when these schools accepted new students, they will choose the students with good background or high abilities. 2. Most students in these kind of schools joined many courses outsides in order to keep higher marks.

Many parents hope to enter so-called traditional famous primary school, think their kids can high academic training. I'm sorry to say if you have not enough supports, pls don't choose, otherwise, you and yr kid will feel great pressure.

I greatly admire some district band 1 primary schools, those teachers work hard and know how to care students. And some new DSS schools are also very good and aggressive.

leschelems

LLT has brought up a very common misconception of ignoring discrimination in defining fairness which contradicts Jediknight's.  And I can see the essense of Jediknight's argument is the very core of NON-DISCRIMINATORY FAIRNESS which means, to be fair, equals should be treated equally, regardless of their race, color.....and parentage in this case.  In other words, fairness can't exist without non-discrimination.

In fact, those mainlanders are not Hong Kong citizens.  They cannot enjoy the right of being one.  But, technically, those who are born in Hong Kong are one of us.  If granting their right of education here is unfair to HK parents, then denying it is unfair to those children.  

One more point, your argument of financial contribution gives a unilateral view of granting education right.  Childen of HK-born welfarers are also entitiled even though his/her parents, instead of paying tax, live on government subsidies, are they?  Or for the children of those HK citizens who hardly pay any tax because of their poor income, are they taking advantage of other parents?

LLT 寫道:
jediknight:

Let me clarify that I never discriminate the Mainlanders. I was born in Hong Kong.  My degree was awarded by an England university; and I obtained my post-graduate certificate from a university in Hong Kong.  Yet, I always regard myself as a typical Chinese.

I also consider myself as a patriot.  When I got my first adult identity card at my 18, I requested my nationality be registered as "Chinese" instead of "British" as everyone born in Hong Kong was entitled at that time.  I love my race and country (which has to be distinguished from its government or the political party); if needed, I would have no hesitation to die in defending my motherland.  Of course, I understand that telling this will render me to become a laughingstock in this forum, or indeed, everywhere in Hong Kong.  This, however, is the true feeling I have to my country, which lies deep inside my heart, whether or not you believe it.

True as it may that those kids from the Mainland who were born in Hong Kong are eligible to attend the Lucky Draw under the prevailing system, notwithstanding that their parents are not Hong Kong citizens.  What I concern is the question of "fairness" - fairness to those Hong Kong parents who work to contribute to the welfare and prosperity of our society.  No one is disputing that the Mainland kids aforesaid are entitled to attend the Lucky Draw and receive free education under the existing system.  The real issue is: Is this system fair?  This has nothing to do with "discrimination" but a pure question of "fairness".  Don’t forget that the present rule of game is not a divine but man-made rule only.

I just feel unfair for those parents in Hong Kong who work round the clock and do all they can only with a view to allowing their kids to receive good education in the so-called 'good' schools, and their legitimate expectation and opportunity are somehow deprived of by the unfair competition from the Mainland parents who contribute nothing to our society.  To me, it is extremely unfair that the 'give and take' rule simply does not apply under the circumstances though, as I said, it does not affect me in any event.  With due respect, your quoted example of many elder people from the Mainland (did work hard for Hong Kong) during the past decades is inappropriate and perhaps misleading.

Finally, you may rest be assured that you are not the only one in this forum who pays 6 digits tax each year.

leschelems

I am not able to respond to this posting as the second person pronoun hinders my judgement on at whom a particular rebuttal is directed.  If I assume, it will definitely make an ass of u and me.  Really need a clarification!!!

Btw, so far, I have been commenting a government policy issue, not any individual's problem.  Hinted by your frequent mentioning of psychological state and citing of your own practice and experience, I reckon you make it too personal.   

LLT 寫道:
I apologise for not replying earlier as prevented by the workload.

You said that there is nothing wrong for those kids to join the Lucky Draw when they are “entitled”.  When you used the word “entitled”, this necessarily denotes the meaning that it is “as of right” under the laws.  Then would your view be different if, SUPPOSED, the laws were that only children of Hong Kong citizen are eligible to receive free education?  Of course, you have the every right to refuse answering this hypothetical question.

Alternatively, it is your view that all kids from the Mainland should be unconditionally given free education in Hong Kong and no deportation ought to be made despite that they gain their entry by illegal means?  You have my respect if your answer is affirmative, as it naturally follows that your answer to the question whether all Mainlanders who are able to slip into Hong Kong should be given the right of abode must also be affirmative.

May be you have confused the idea of objection to an unfair policy, unpleasant rule or law with that of discrimination.  

Direct discrimination occurs when a person is treated less favourably than another in a comparable situation because of their racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation; whereas indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would disadvantage people on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation unless the practice can be objectively justified by a legitimate aim.

I aired my view that I feel sorry for those parents whose right to choose their desired school is unfairly prejudiced by the kids from the Mainland, whose parent take advantage of the loophole under the present law/regulation.  I didn’t say that these kids are not “entitled” to receive free education in Hong Kong, did I?  Nor did I say that they should not be allowed to receive free education here.  How, then, can I be said as being discriminative?

Yes, I agree that denying the right of free education to those innocent kids from the Mainland is unfair to them when they are “entitled” under the present laws and regulations.  The crux is: What makes them “entitled”?  The answer is the men-made law/regulation.

Whether this law/regulation is objectionable is an issue which worth further consideration, as it encourages the malpractice of many Mainland pregnant women making illegal entry into Hong Kong at the 11 hours, risking the life of the baby.  It also increases the burden on social resources which have to be shouldered by Hong Kong citizens in the years to come, let alone the unfairness to kids of local parents, whose chance of entering the desired schools is reduced.

All in all it seems to me your view is simply that since they are entitled under the current law/regulation, then they are entitled – that’s the end of the matter!  Any complaint or grievance from those being affected is classified, or regarded by you, as discrimination.  Is this too arbitrary a view of yours?

I am unable to agree that by spelling out my sympathy to those local parents who are unfairly prejudiced by the competition from the Mainlanders’ kids is “discrimination” under the cloak of “fairness”.

I did not say that that contribution to the welfare and prosperity of the society is the equivalence of tax payment.  "Contribution to the welfare of the society” has a much broader meaning than the narrow interpretation of tax or financial contribution.  In my view, it refers also to any effort made by an individual that contributes to benefit of the society generally.  Take the example of a cleansing worker who earns only $4,500 a month.  Certainly, he/she is not qualified to pay tax.  But, please envisage the environment and hygienic conditions of the community if nobody is willing to work as cleansing worker.  Even a CSSA recipient who stays at home looking after her/his younger kids is making contribution to the society, for otherwise more public resources would have to be available in care of them.

Incidentally, just a word on the accusation on me for my “selfishness”.  Seven or eight years ago when I watched the TV and learned that a bright young student, being the eldest son of a farmer in a remote village in PRC, who had just been admitted by “Beihang University (Beijing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics) 北京航空航天大學”decided to give up his seat as his family was unable to pay his school fees and living expenses.  I was so impressed and felt pity for him that after further consideration and with the consent of my wife, I decided to support this young man by sponsoring his school fees and living expenses in the coming few years.  I phoned the TV station to make enquiry if I could contact this young man and remit money to him directly.  Later, I was replied that any donation had to be made through an organization in PRC (I forget the name) and no direct remittance to the student was allowed.  On hearing this I gave up the plan as I was not confident that all my remittance would reach this student.  Although I did not make the donation at the end for reason aforesaid, I did have such a good intention to do so.  I wonder if you still hold your view on me that I am such a selfish person as you have thought of after hearing this story.

Notwithstanding the above, I do realise that any attempt in persuading you to accept my view is doomed to fail, and I have no intention to drag on fruitless argument with you.  As such, I will respond no further no matter how you are to further insult my intelligence and/or personality.

leschelems

這的確是香港的問題。

九七年前，香港是容許有雙重國籍，而當時六百萬香港人中，有一半擁有外國護照，因為中國不容許雙重國籍，如果把第二十四條依澳門基本法般來制定，當真大件事，有一半人的子女不合資格成為香港人。

麟媽媽 寫道:
大家都係中國特區，澳門唔係咁架，
國內人士既BB 係澳門出世，
係無居留權既，所以無人湧去澳門生仔。


[quote]
ckwliu 寫道:

2) citizenship - should we allow ppl to become a citizen if they were born here regardless of their parentage?  should be yes as other countries are doing the same thing.   

[/quote]