哈羅教師被揭學歷造假

poonseelai

caa 發表於 13-6-28 10:14
The school (normally organized as a limited company) is definitely nonprofit making. But how about t ...

Franchise fee is paid to a private company owned by a son of Yau Tak Gun, if my memory is correct.  I think the same franchise arrangement applies to Harrow schools in Beijing and Bangkok.  We, as taxpayers, are subsidising the school and in a way paying fees to a private organisation.  How about other IS in HK?

caa

poonseelai 發表於 13-6-28 10:56
Franchise fee is paid to a private company owned by a son of Yau Tak Gun, if my memory is correct.   ...

Guess that can only be judged by the organization running the school, composition of the governing board, background of board members...

bobbycheung

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

Thanks for pointing it out.  But I would like to raise 2 further points:-
1. I don't know if the land and the loan were granted on the basis that the school is a non-profit making organisation. If it is indeed the case, shouldn't the government take steps to ensure that the school is truly non-profit making (as opposed to "technically" non-profit making)?  Shouldn't the government be under a duty to ensure that no money will be channeled elsewhere? For example, HKTHK said the school is paying 5% franchise fee. What if the school and Harrow School UK agree to increase the franchise fee to 30% so that no or little money will be left in the school coffers?
2. Let's say Hong Kong is in need of hospital beds (which I believe is the real situation).  Now I propose to set up a non-profit making company and I come to an agreement with a famous hospital in UK by which I could use its name so long as I pay them a franchise fee. Applying the same principle, should the Government grant me a piece of land valued HK$600M for HK$1,000 and an interest-free loan of HK$273M for the construction cost of the hospital?

Littleho

Another cyber port

shadeslayer

原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-28 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-28 20:44 編輯

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

To answer your questions:

1.  I don't know the details but yes they should be monitored and controlled.

2. The key thing is to determine if Harrow HK gets preferential benefits from the HK government.  I believe the answer is no, because other private schools or IS get the same, as far as I know.

bobbycheung

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

To me, whether Harrow HK is getting the same benefits as other private schools or IS is not of the major importance.  The key point is whether the government is using public funds (HK$873M in total value) to finance a scheme whereby somebody under the pretence of a non-profit-making company is making a huge profit at little costs.  If there are other private schools or IS channeling off money, they too should be disallowed.

shadeslayer

Bobbycheung

We have to look at things at different layers.  The first question to ask is whether the HK SAR government is following its own rules in supporting schools.  We need to establish that first.  If the answer is no, the government is not following its own rules and give Harrow HK preferential benefits, then they have a lot to answer for.  The problem is with government giving Harrow HK unfair privileges.  All other schools will scream at the government.

If the answer to the first question is yes, the government is playing by the books and all other IS and private schools are getting the same treatment, then we are dealing with an entirely different problem.  A policy problem.  Is the policy fair?  Does the policy have loopholes?  What shall we do to plug the loopholes.  See, this is an entirely different problem.

I am very concerned about the first questions because it may involve corruption, under-table deals, etc.  If it is a policy issue, then it is a bigger but normal problem and it is ok.  Because we always want to improve the policies and they are never perfect, right?

bobbycheung

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

shadeslayer,

I look at it differently.  The HKSAR government granted the land and the loan to Harrow HK because Harrow HK claimed to be a non-profit-making organisation.  But the question is this - Is Harrow HK (working with its "partners" in an arrangement like this) truly a non-profit-making organisation?  I don't think so.  As to whether Harrow HK is getting the same benefits as other private schools or IS, I don't think it really matters because to me, Harrow HK's scheme is a sham and Harrow HK should not be entitled to such a generous "support" from HKSAR Government in the first place.    By the way, even if the answer to your first question is affirmative (ie. Harrow HK and all other IS and private schools are getting exactly the same benefits), there could still be corruption and under-table deals etc. involved because people who wouldn't otherwise be entitled to any benefit are getting the same benefit as those who run a genuine non-profit-making school.

shadeslayer

原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-28 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-28 23:45 編輯

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

At work, I was the coordinator for a number of audits. My industry is a highly regulated industry and I understand how the internal auditors work.

What I described above, was not invented by me. It is the way auditors work every time. They will "always" try to establish if there is any significant violation of important policies. They will look at policies, then look at data. if there are violations of policies, it is a significant or important audit point right away, we have no way to defend.  If no violations are found they will start to challenge the policies themselves, around completeness , around principles, etc.  Sometimes they have a case, sometime not.

If this approach works for auditors in a highly regulated industry, it has some truth in it, don't you think?  I personally think it makes a lot of sense.

Back to public affairs, preferential treatment is always a big concern as it is a strong indicator of foul play. ICAC will be involved. Of course, like you said, even they play by the rule book, there could still be foul play, but there is no indicators of such.

Your issues around non profit-making company channelling money elsewhere is a much bigger policy problem. It is a potential loophole in the policy. It is an exploit of the policy but "on the surface" nobody is breaking the law. If you suspect Harrow HK channelling money, you have to suspect all other non profit making companies channelling money.

ANChan59

As a newly established school, would they go through audit yet?

bobbycheung

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

Every profession or industry has its own (but different) approach.  For instance, lawyers will first of all find out which side they are on.  They will then look at the facts and then find laws that support his case or weaken his opponent's.  This approach also makes a lot of sense for lawyers, but it probably won't work for auditors.  The approach you described that work well for auditors probably won't work for lawyers either.  So there is really no universal approach that fits all.   To me, the best approach for a layman like me is the common sense approach.   

Here we have Harrow HK paying a franchise fee to Harrow School UK.  According to the article cited by HKTHK, the franchise fee could amount to HK$10M a year. The fee was described as "a royalty payment for the use of the school's name and the visits and support that Harrow gives". Now just off the top of my head, I have these questions and many more:-
1. Is this franchise fee necessary?  As far as I know, ISF set up the school without payment of franchise fee and it's working well as a non-profit-making school.  The same with many other IS schools in HK.  In fact, is there any other school in HK that pays a franchise fee to a third party?
2. What if Harrow School HK and Harrow School UK come to an agreement to increase the franchise fee so that more money is flowing from Harrow School HK's pocket to Harrow School UK's pocket?  Who is on the school board of Harrow School HK?
3. Last but not least, the article said Harrow School HK was set up by Hong Kong tycoon Daniel Chiu.  What role is he playing?  Is he doing all these for free?

All these would not have been much of a problem if no public fund had been involved.  But there is a generous support of HK$873M given by the Government.  Is the grant of the land and the interest-free loan a right decision? Further, what steps are taken by the Government to monitor how the school's money is used?

By the way, I have nothing against Harrow School HK.  But I would urge parents there to monitor and follow closely how money is being used.  It's meant to be a non-profit-making school and all money should be used for the benefit of the kids only.

ANChan59

回復 bobbycheung 的帖子

Do you know the Board of Director list ?

shadeslayer

原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-29 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 11:47 編輯

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

What I am saying is, this is the way auditing works in the most rigorously regulated industry to find faults and wrong doings. I think it make sense to learn a thing or two from them. If you think otherwise, that is fine too.

bobbycheung

回復 ANChan59 的帖子

I have got no idea.  The newspaper said 張震遠先生曾任哈羅香港國際學校校董會主席及哈羅國際學校（香港）有限公司及Harrow International School Foundation Limited之董事, 但已辭職。

By the way, when poonseelai said "franchise fee is paid to a private company owned by a son of Yau Tak Gun", perhaps she is referring to this newspaper report.
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20120608/00174_001.html

ANChan59

I heard about that one of the director is Donald's son.  Just want to clarify.

bobbycheung

回復 ANChan59 的帖子

ANchan59,

To be honest, what really bugs me is that the Government is holding billions and billions of dollars in reserve. (see http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1153362/calls-government-limit-size-fiscal-reserve). Top Government official like 曾蔭權 and 湯顯明 are spending public funds like water on oversea trips and wines (see http://news.takungpao.com.hk/people/celeb/2012-06/335234.html).  The newspaper report above said the land granted to Harrow HK was in fact worth HK$1,400M.  If we add in HK273M interest-free loan, we are talking about HK$1,673M in total. Not a small change by any means.  What is the school's target group of students?  Those who can afford to pay at least HK$118,700 a year in school fee (not to mention the debenture etc).  Let's not forget there are lots of people in Hong Kong making a meagre living and living in 劏房.  What has the Government done for them?

poonseelai

bobbycheung 發表於 13-6-29 14:05
回復 ANChan59 的帖子

ANchan59,

Thanks bobbycheng for the news update.  The information I mentioned was based on Next Magazine a years ago.  As the news mentioned, Harrow HK is paying both the franchise fee and the management fee.  I was wondering what would be the impact if the huge government fund relating to Harrow is spent on local education.  

shadeslayer

原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-29 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 14:24 編輯

回復 ANChan59 的帖子

There were outcries of not enough international school places. If they did not get Harrow, and today's IS queue is even longer, somebody would say the government is not doing anything, right?

In fact, why single out Harrow? The government recently granted IMS, Kellette school, and some other IS with similar or more precious land in Kowloon. What about the HKIS, CIS. GSIS, ISF premier sites in HK island?

The list is endless.   It becomes a policy issue. If the government did not have this policy, how many IS "less" than today would we have?

Harrow is not my cup of tea and I am not a government supporter, but accusations have to be reasonable.

bobbycheung

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

I don't know.  To me, doing something wrong is even worse than doing nothing.  The huge demand of IS places is to a large extent a result of parents' dissatisfaction with the local education system.  There is a mass exodus of students from local schools to IS and hence the lack of IS places.  The thing for the government to do is to try to fix the local education problems.  No matter how many more IS we build, the IS queue will continue to grow so long as the local education problems are not fixed.

Why single out Harrow?  Harrow pays a huge franchise fee and (according to poonseelai) a management fee to a third party.  This has the effect of channeling money out from a non-profit-making organisation.  Does any of the schools you named do the same?  If any of them do, please let us know as they should be condemned too.

The government's policy is aimed towards non-profit-making schools.  We can't just say we need more IS and we will grant land and loans to any IS indiscriminately.  As I said, I think Harrow' arrangement is a sham.  It is not truly non-profit-making and should not be entitled to the generous benefits from the government.   

I have stated my case.  Whether my accusations are reasonable is for everyone to judge. I also welcome different views from you as they say "真理越辯越明".

shadeslayer

原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-29 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 19:38 編輯

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

There are still many question marks to me. For example whether there is a difference in the government funding if the school is incorporated as a non profit making company or a profit making company.

I want to know the facts before passing judgment on franchise fees or management fees of Harrow or any other private schools or IS.

What is clear to me is that if someone is not following rule book, someone may go to jail for the violations. If it is about changing the policy, it will take years.