TOP TEN PRIMARY - VOTE

LLT

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.

ballbluehk

Agree

andrew

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.

I think the law is very clear that Hong Kong citizen are eligible to receive free education (not the children of Hong Kong citizen), if a child was borned in Hong Kong, no doublt he/she is a Hong Kong citizen.

I feel heart-breaking once I imagine the scenario that those kids from the Mainland, whose parents are not HK citizens, also competing with our local kids in the Lucky Draw for seats in La Salle Primary School, Maryknoll Convent School (Primary Section), Diocesan Preparatory School …. etc. Thanks God my kids would have passed the stage already by that time, and won’t have to compete with them!

If you can understand that a child was born in Hong Kong, he is sure a HongKong citizen, then you must feel ashamed of saying this.

No need to talk too much lar! I think no one can insult others intelligence or personality if he doing right.

LLT

andrew 寫道:

I think the law is very clear that Hong Kong citizen are eligible to receive free education (not the children of Hong Kong citizen), if a child was borned in Hong Kong, no doublt he/she is a Hong Kong citizen.

If you can understand that a child was born in Hong Kong, he is sure a HongKong citizen, then you must feel ashamed of saying this.

Though I said I won't respond further, as an old friend of mine, I feel it impolite if I do not reply you at all.

Firstly, I am not so sure if your statement that "the law is very clear that Hong Kong citizen are eligible to receive free education" being correct.

If you don't mind, let me ask you a personally question.  Did your parents pay your school fee when you were in Form 4?  If it was too long a matter for you to recall, then, may be you can tell if you need to pay school fee (except if you got the scholarship) when you attended your university in Hong Kong?  I suppose you are a Hong Kong citizen.  

Secondly, I am also not so sure if your saying that "a child was born in Hong Kong, he is sure a Hong Kong citizen".  May I refer you to read Chapter III, Article 24 of the Basic Law before you make such an unqualified broad statement of law.  

I take this opportunity to supplement that what I have been talking about is the issue of what makes the kids whose parents are not Hong Kong citizen to have the status of 'Hong Kong citizen'?  This is the result of a loophole in the Basic Law.  I am not talking about kids born in Hong Kong necessarily become citizens of Hong Kong as what you have stated, which statement is definitely wrong in the absence of any qualification!

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.

明心道

ass+u+m=assume,又幾得意.

麟媽媽

唉….根本就無咩值得再討論落去既！
有人覺得總之小朋友係香港出世，
合情合法，理應有同等待遇，
法例係咁，你理得佢父母係咪香港人啫？
但有人覺得咁既法例即係唔公平，
比左訂又或是穿水衝關，總之入到境佢又生得出，
咁又可以同我地港人一樣，唔公平！
之但係法例又改變唔到，發吓牢騷都得啩？！
歸根究底都係立法既問題，
只是有人認同，有人唔認同，
討論中，我唔覺得有人歧視D 小朋友喎。
以前，好多香港人籮咁大個肚去美加生仔，
當地人夠討厭呢D 港人啦，而家道理一樣啫。

麟媽媽

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。

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.   

麟媽媽

係呀！法例係咁我地唯有遵守。
不過港人本色，守還守，
但市民有自由，可以鬧吓嘛！
有人不停鬧，呢頭又有港人老公遊行，
香港仲有呢樣好，百花齊放，嘩 ))))

ckwliu 寫道:
yes, too bad, our high court decided that they should be granted the citizenship...  so we just have the respect the law and the consequences it brings...

[quote]
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。

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]

DanielRoth

It's really unexpected that this topic resulted in such an argument. It's OK to discuss and argue but the manner is important. My feeling is it's definitely implolite, offensive and discriminating to call someone "You poor selfish old guy!!!".

andrew

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。

Agree, I had a trip to China last summer time, a family came from England, a mother and a very tall son, the mother told me that her son was born in England, although that was the first time he came to Hong Kong, he was issued a HKID by our government. I think if this boy was born in China, yes, he is a Hong Kong citizen, however, he need to stay in China and follow a long long queue.

The follows copy part of basic law:

Article 24
Residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("Hong Kong residents") shall include permanent residents and non-permanent residents.

The permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be:

( 1 ) Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
......

I am a simple man, I think no doulbt that a child born in Hong Kong is a permanent residents for sure.

On the other hand, by common sense, if "a child born in Hong Kong is a citizen" is argueable,  that mean you no need to worry about competing with them.

For subsidy schools, I think everyone know that it cannot control the student intake, it is no point to worry about competing with them (Poor, and etc.) in lucky draw stage.

jaja

為咩國內人要嚟香港生, 就要問吓澳門有無香港禁好福利先,值唔值得湧去

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。

BoBoCute

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.  

Unlike the US and Canada, babies born in the UK are not entitled to be UK citizens unless their parents are also UK citizens.  
My baby was born in London without UK citizenship.