ESF 英基資助

田心

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 ...

Hey, don't forget, HK residents include Indian, Pakistanis, etc. They are the minorities, many of them can only speak their own languages and English. Of course, some are able to understand Cantonese but not many of them are able to read or write Chinese.  Therefore, they may not be able to access the local education system. These parents are able to send their children to ESF with an affordable school fees due to the subventions.

FattyDaddy

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 ...

Besides the non-Chinese minorities you mentioned, there is a group of local Chinese Hongkongers who emigrated and then returned to Hongkong, their children are probably born overseas too, these people may not bother with Cantonese, perhaps because they don't see their children spending most of their lives in Hongkong anyway. Thanks to 1997, this group is quite huge, I would guess at least 1 million local Hongkongers have foreign citizenship of some kind.

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.

shadeslayer

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  ...

FattyFaddy,

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.

FattyDaddy

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?

田心

原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-09 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-9 21:55 編輯

shadeslayer

原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-09 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-9 21:55 編輯

I have no problem ESF close the door for 95% of HK residents. 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.

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.

FattyDaddy

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.

Shootastar

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.

FattyDaddy

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...

Now that is a stronger argument, at least you admit the fact that 70% are HK residents. Discriminatory admission policy? Now that is funny, a discriminatory admission policy (against HK residents) resulting in a student population of 70% HK residents, I wonder what kind of magic that is

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.

Shootastar

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.

FattyDaddy

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....

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.

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?

Atticus

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.

FattyDaddy

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

Yawning here too.

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

Shootastar

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.

FattyDaddy

Shootastar 發表於 12-11-10 12:48
Sorry, again you purposely mislead others by omitting the word "Hong Kong PERMANENT residents..

My omission, these 70% of ESF students, they ARE permanent residents either born in HK or visitors who have no limit or condition on their stay in Hongkong, feel better now? {:1_1:}

Shootastar

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.

FattyDaddy

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 ...

Alright, feel free to pick on those 30%, but that goes back to my other question doesn't it.

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.

Shootastar

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.

FattyDaddy

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.

HAHAHAHA, wonderful, so please explain how a discriminatory admission policy against local permanent residents ends up having local PERMANENT residents making up 70% of their student population, beats me

shadeslayer

原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-10 發表
HAHAHAHA, wonderful, so please explain how a discriminatory admission policy against local permanent ...

New participants in the discussion, interesting.

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.