教育王國
標題: ESF schools Futher $$$$ [打印本頁]
作者: polyu4537 時間: 12-10-15 08:46 標題: ESF schools Futher $$$$
ESF schools
【明報專訊】THE ENGLISH SCHOOLS FOUNDATION (ESF) has revealed its talks with the government may take a favourable turn. It is optimistic that its funding (which has been frozen at $280 million a year for twelve years) will go up to $400 million a year and expects that to be finalised by September next year.
ESF schools are reluctant to join the Direct Subsidy Scheme. In fact, if they do so, they will have to operate under the local school system and, as a result, lose much of their competitive advantage. Nor would they position themselves as international schools. They want to charge tuition that is on a par with international schools', get funding from the government and remain outside Hong Kong's school system. The ESF's turf is like a "concession territory" in Hong Kong's education system. Not only does it enjoy "extraterritoriality", but the government also spends public money to maintain its "extraterritoriality". That, one may say, is absolutely absurd. Last year the government said the ESF question was one "inherited from history" and suggested it was necessary to define the ESF's positioning and see that its schools would gradually become responsible for their own profits and losses without detriment to their performance. The ESF, which enjoys privileges, is an anomaly. Its existence is quite at odds with the principle of fairness. This ought to be changed. The previous administration moved in the right direction when it said it was its aim to solve the problem once and for all by having ESF schools assume sole responsibility for their own profits and losses.
Since some years ago, the ESF, unable to come to terms with the government, has found new ways to increase its incomes. ESF schools have not only raised their tuition but also charged their students "construction" and "maintenance" fees. Such a charge may easily amount to several ten thousand dollars. Though its reserves stand at $900 million, it is vigorously raising funds (allegedly for rebuilding its schools). It is thus quite clear that ESF schools do not operate differently from international schools. Like them, they charge ultra-high tuition and miscellaneous charges and use "financial techniques" to raise funds. The way they operate smacks strongly of commercialisms. It would aggravate the unfairness for the government to continue to provide the ESF with funding.
In fact, though ESF parents have to pay high tuition and many miscellaneous fees, people are no less desirous of sending their children to ESF schools. Their places are hard to come by. This shows the ESF has such a reputation and is in such a position that it should turn its schools into private institutions rather than go to extraordinary lengths to obtain government funding.
The government should take such steps that ESF schools will eventually become private entities (which are responsible for their own profits and losses). Specifically, it should assure ESF students it will subsidise their primary and secondary schooling and make it a rule that "money should follow students" so that their subsidisation will continue even if they go to other schools. One may say the government has taken into account both history and reality if it pursues such a policy, which may help soften ESF parents' antagonism. Subsidising the schooling of those who now attend ESF schools means the ESF may adapt itself to changes in a thirteen-year transition period. We believe this is the best way to deal with the ESF question. The government would be well advised to consider adopting it.
明報社評2012.10.12﹕英基學校應自負盈虧 政府資助應逐步撤銷
英基校方透露與政府的磋商有轉機。校方對凍結了12年的每年2.8億元資助額能夠增加至4億元，取態樂觀，並期望明年8月底前定案云云。
英基不願意改為直資。事實上，若英基改為直資，意味回歸本地學制，優勢大減；而英基也不願定位為國際學校，它只肯收取等同國際學校的學費，接受政府資助，而又獨立於本港學制以外。英基恍似香港教育制度的「租界」，不僅擁有「治外法權」，政府還以公帑維繫這個治外法權，可謂十分荒誕。去年，政府認為「英基是歷史遺留下來的問題」，要釐清定位，提出在不影響英基的教學質素下，逐步過渡至自負盈虧。英基的畸形存在等於享有特權，從根本上偏離了公平原則，有必要改變，上一屆政府提出要英基自負盈虧的目標，以徹底解決這個問題，是正確的方向。
多年來，英基與政府談不攏的情下，在財政收入方面已經另闢蹊徑，除了加學費，也向學生徵收建校費、保養費等費用，動輒數萬元。英基現有9億元儲備，仍然積極籌集資金，據稱是為準備重建學校。從這些情看來，英基的營運模式與其他國際學校並無分別，都是以高昂學費和附帶收費以至「財技」集資等操作，商業意味濃烈，若政府繼續給予資助，不公平情將更嚴重。
其實，即使英基學費昂貴，加上要家長繳付其他費用，仍然無礙家長熱忱，學額難求，反映以英基的校譽和條件，應該轉型為私校，勿再千方百計尋求政府資助了。
政府應該採取措施，逐步使英基轉型為自負盈虧的私校。具體做法是政府向已入讀英基的學生保證，繼續資助他們直至中學畢業，並訂定「錢跟學生走」的原則，就算學生轉讀其他學校，資助仍然持續。這樣做，可以顧及歷史與現實，紓解英基家長的反對情緒，而繼續資助現有學生，意味英基有13年過渡期適應轉變。我們認為這是解決英基這個歷史遺留下來問題的最好方法，值得政府考慮。
http://news.mingpao.com/20121015/ema1.htm
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-15 09:37
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-15 09:41 編輯
When ESF get subvention from the government some people say that is unfair and ESF should be solely responsible for their profits and losses like other international schools.
Alright, so ESF tries to raise money by issuing nomination rights at $500,000 a shot, just like other international schools selling debentures, and some people say that is unfair to those who can't pay.
Its about time Hongkongers get to grips with reality.
作者: 田心 時間: 12-10-15 12:44 標題: 回覆：ESF schools Futher $$$$
In my humble opinion, if ESF can get $400 million from the government, it should slightly change it's admission policy. There are lots of expatriates' children in their schools and the school fees are pay by their companies. If the admission priorities to those children who are born in HK and English is their first language. Then it will little a bit fair to the HK tax payer. Their are lots of International schools in HK, their companies are able to pay a higher wages for their employees from overseas, they can pay a higher school fee!
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-15 14:01
田心 發表於 12-10-15 12:44 
There are lots of expatriates' children in their schools and the school fees are pay by their companies. ...
作者: flashingcat 時間: 12-10-15 14:38 標題: 回覆：polyu4537 的帖子
expat are tax payer in hk too. I don't see any point they can't enjoy some benefit from hk government. not all expat are rich and not all companies are willing to pay for housing and school fee.
作者: md23 時間: 12-10-15 15:46
FattyDaddy 發表於 12-10-15 09:37
When ESF get subvention from the government some people say that is unfair and ESF should be solely ...
The problem is now they are having the cake and eating it too. They haven't given up government funding and they start charging the $500,000 already. If they fully give up government funding, and rely exclusively on debenture, I don't think people would have a problem with them.
作者: WYmom 時間: 12-10-15 16:12
本帖最後由 WYmom 於 12-10-15 16:13 編輯
Hope that the increase in govt subvention can slow down the high increase of school fees every year since 2005. The fee of secondary school is already $100,000 per year now. Besides, it is good news if they really build more new schools in NT to cope with the increase demand in NT West and North.
Below news quoted from "The Standard":
Most of the students have parents who are permanent residents and taxpayers.
There is a shortage of ESF places. About 6,500 students are on the waiting lists of the five secondary and nine primary schools.
This year, about 2,400 applicants competed for about 1,000 Secondary One places.
Tong also said the ESF hopes to build more schools in the New Territories.
ESF chief executive Heather Du Quesnay said rents in Hong Kong are high and the group is reluctant to keep on increasing fees. Consequently, it hopes to build new schools in the New Territories.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-15 16:23
md23 發表於 12-10-15 15:46
The problem is now they are having the cake and eating it too. They haven't given up government fun ...
ESF Primary Schools (Primary 1 to 6) - HK$ 66,100
http://www.esf.edu.hk/our-schools/admissions-criteria/school-fees
ISF Primary School (Foundation Year to Grade 5) - HK$ 134,750
http://www.isf.edu.hk/en/admissions/fees-and-tuition/
Singapore International School (Primary Section) - HK$ 95,000
http://www.singapore.edu.hk/En/Pub/Fee.aspx?id=12
Chinese International School (Years 1-6) - HK$ 144,800
http://www.cis.edu.hk/tuition.asp?lang=e
Canadian International School (Prep to Grade 4) - HK$ 106,900
http://www.cdnis.edu.hk/admissions/20122013-tuition-fee-structure.html
Figures don't lie, ESF may have the cake (i.e. the subvention) but they share the eating with the stakeholders (i.e. the parents), how else could their fees be considerably lower, down to half of what some other international schools are charging.
The HK$ 500,000 Nomination Right Scheme was introduced because there were noises from certain people and the government was threatening to take the cake away, and ESF would rather sell rights to raise money than to significantly raise fees.
Now that the subvention is not only sustained but increased is a piece of GOOD NEWS to average Hongkongers, because through ESF their children have access to international school education at an affordable price.
作者: md23 時間: 12-10-15 17:10
FattyDaddy 發表於 12-10-15 16:23
Lets look at the fees charged by ESF schools and compare that to what the other international school ...
I got nothing against ESF, but they did increase their fee in my opinion.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-15 17:30
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-15 22:10 編輯
md23 發表於 12-10-15 17:10
Yes, but they do have government subsidy and just increased their fees. Only that the increase is bo ...
This is true, ESF increased their fees this year, by around 5%, but I guess we should look at the big picture. Even after the 5% increase it is HK$ 66,100 (ESF) compared to HK$134,750 (ISF), almost an exact double, I for one am glad that ESF's subvention is sustained and Hongkongers continue to have a cheaper option for international schools {:1_1:}
作者: nintendo 時間: 12-10-15 18:03
FattyDaddy 發表於 12-10-15 09:37 
When ESF get subvention from the government some people say that is unfair and ESF should be solely ...
當年香港回歸，esf 開始每年收大量本地學生，以往國際學校不是一般人可以負擔，因為 esf 學費較低，現在很多中產都可以負擔。
突然多了有得 "升 lev" 的機會，個個趨之若騖。好話唔好聽，個個屋苑都有人讀 esf。
esf 學費大眾化，其實好多人都計準條數，一早步署，諗住自己可以幫仔女 "升 lev" 。
本來條數都計到好盡，應該可以負擔 esf，而家一個屈尾十，又甚麼 nomination fees 又 capital levy，好多沒可能再 "加碼" 的人一定有怨言。
講真，我又唔明你 (地) 又咁得閒，真係慢慢解釋佢地聽，我就冇咁好氣喇。
香港人而家好多怨氣，成日覺得點解人地有某 d 著數，自己冇。
鮮 x 行學校經常得到善長捐助，都好多人唔抵得，自由講場個邊三兩日就有新 topic 鬧校長。
作者: 112200 時間: 12-10-15 18:06
I think it is reasonable for HK govt to withdraw the subsidy to ESF, just like all the rest private school ( including Internationschool). If ESF want to get HK govt subsidy, they should turn themselves to 直資school and to be partially responsible to HK govt. Of course it will be subjected to HK govt' direction whether govt want to extend their 直資service to International school. But all in all ...... ESF is a bit too aggressive, the $ 400k nomination right is non-refundable. All the rest IS's nomination right will be refuned after student graduate.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-15 18:48
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-15 21:25 編輯
nintendo 發表於 12-10-15 18:03
講真，我又唔明你 (地) 又咁得閒，真係慢慢解釋佢地聽，我就冇咁好氣喇。
香港人而家好多怨氣，成日覺得點解人地有某 d 著數，自己冇。 ...
Certain misconceptions need to be addressed, such as the belief that ESF students are mostly rich ex-pat children getting a free lunch from Hongkong taxpayers, which is simply not true. Most ESF students are children of local Hongkong families entitled to as much subsidy as any other local Hongkong family.
As for 著數, surely, one will get the MOST jetso by attending local schools, that is where most of the money goes, I mean, 十五年免費教育, how could one get more jetso than that? 
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-15 18:58
I have no objection that the Government should subsidise each local student in the same amount of subsidy as Government grants to each student in the local school system. However, why should the tax payers have to fund (or subsidise) the students from overseas? It is not fair to the tax payers.
作者: flashingcat 時間: 12-10-15 19:52 標題: 回覆：Shootastar 的帖子
expats from overseas have to pay tax in hk too. they are also tax payer in hk. don't get it wrong, they may need.to pay even more than locals. so why foreigners can't enjoy the benefit from hk government if they are part of the tax payer???
作者: poonseelai 時間: 12-10-15 20:07
I have no objection to ESF continues to receive subsidy from government as long as ESF agrees to be under the same monitoring system like other DSS.
作者: 田心 時間: 12-10-15 22:00 標題: 回覆：ESF schools Futher $$$$
From what I know is in some countries if the parents are holding a working visa not yet a PR and the children are not citizens, even the children go to the local government school, they need to pay at overseas students rate. Their parents are taxpayers but not citizen and PR.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-15 22:21
polyu4537 發表於 12-10-15 08:46
【明報專訊】... It is thus quite clear that ESF schools do not operate differently from international schools. Like them, they charge ultra-high tuition ...
ESF charging "ultra-high" tuition like other international schools? Just what is this propaganda rag MingPao trying to pull? and to think there are blockheads who actually believe what they print.
作者: flashingcat 時間: 12-10-15 22:25 標題: 回覆：田心 的帖子
are u talking about higher education or compulsory education. As far as I know, all major countries like USA, UK, Japan, Canada etc, all resident who has valid visa can enjoy free compulsory education in public school. so which countries are u referring to? of course if talking about higher education like university, master etc, then the answer is Yes in public university but private one, the fee is the same. Honestly, why expat kids are unable to study in public school in HK?? It's all about language issue. I know some foreign children are studying in DSS but they were all born here and studied in local kinder, otherwise, children are unable to fit in local primaries.
作者: 田心 時間: 12-10-15 23:01 標題: 回覆：ESF schools Futher $$$$
In Australia NSW state.
作者: nintendo 時間: 12-10-16 08:53
本帖最後由 nintendo 於 12-10-16 08:56 編輯
每個地方都有各樣唔同的政策，好難話邊度點做就要跟。
其實另一方面，有 d 國家，甚至外國人去讀大學，都有資助，但又未必有人會去讀。
有人話 esf 得到太多 "優待"，其實 esf 就因為要開源，正正就已經加入 capital levy 和 nomination rights 等 "收錢" 方案，結果係點？一樣有人話唔公度。
呢個亦係我話，有 d 人根本就係覺得自己享用唔都 "著數" 就嘈。
成日話要公平，其實每個 esf 學生的資助，其他本地學校學生都享用緊，本地資助學校學費全免，肯讀就有位。不過當然唔一定你想入邊間就邊間，部份名校 (資助)，入學門檻亦各有不同。好多人覺得小一派位計分方法不公平，每年總有人因為仔女入唔到瑪xx 和喇 x 等就鬧。
講真，要公平，不如大家再舊事重提，大力推動爭取 " 學券制" 啦。當年 "業界" (老師學校) 大力反對，結果不了了之，其實家長要求好簡單，錢隨學生走，我去邊度讀，邊錢就去邊度。
作者: nintendo 時間: 12-10-16 09:35
FattyDaddy 發表於 12-10-15 18:48
Certain misconceptions need to be addressed, such as the belief that ESF students are mostly rich e ...
你覺得佢地會因為你幾個 message 就唔鬧？
我自己個人就覺得，佢地係誤解又好，針對又好，都係算把啦。
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 09:56
回復 flashingcat 的帖子
Yes, expatriate's children should enjoy the free education provided to HK people on local education system - like other local children do - because they pay tax.
However, subsiding a elite international school which mainly target expatriate children is another matter. Why should the expatriate children have the higher priviliege than local children? Disregarding the direct subsidies for a moment, the HK government has already subsided ESF consistently for the large and grand school premises. Few local schools can be compared with ESF in this regard. Why other International schools in Hong Kong have no subsidies from the government but ESF should have? Is it fair.
If ESF adopts a policy which is fair to the applicants, I have no objection that the subsidy granted per student should be the same as the local schools.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 10:03
回復 flashingcat 的帖子
The major countries you referred to charge income tax from 25% to 40%. Expatriates in those countries have contributed a lot.
In Hong Kong we charge only 15% (maximum) on income tax.
I am not opposing the grant to ESF so long as it goes to local students who study there. If ESF wants to have across the board subsidy from the Government, ESF should change its discriminatory admission policy against the local children.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 10:13
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-10-16 10:40 編輯
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
I agree to provide equal subsidy to ESF as the to local schools so long as it abandons its discriminatory admission policy against the local children.
Although ESF may have more than half of the local children, it would admit an expatriate's children first. It would admit local students only if there are no expatriate children (or some returning HK people after immigration) in the queue.
For local people, they charge the nomination right if you want some priority in getting an interview. Do they charge expatriate children - say, an English or American expatriate who intend to bring their children here?
Although they say they will, the reality is that those expatriate children have already had the priority and they would not pay. Again it is fair to the local children that we should give grant to those expatriate children?
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 10:15
回復 nintendo 的帖子
"其實家長要求好簡單，錢隨學生走，我去邊度讀，邊錢就去邊度".
This is a good solution to the arguments over the subsidy to ESF.
作者: nintendo 時間: 12-10-16 10:32
Shootastar 發表於 12-10-16 10:15
"其實家長要求好簡單，錢隨學生走，我去邊度讀，邊錢就去邊度".
This is a good solution to the arguments over the subsidy to ESF.
咁你地去問下d 尊貴的議員囉。
當年學券制反對得最勁係邊 d 人？
講到尾，邊有人真心為教育，都係為厄飯食。
唔係有 d 咁既人，都唔會有咁多逃兵啦，你估有免費學校唔讀，比咁多人讀 esf 真係同 d 錢鬥氣？
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-16 11:29
Shootastar 發表於 12-10-16 10:13
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
Although ESF may have more than half of the local children, it would admit an expatriate's children first ...
For local people, they charge the nomination right if you want some priority in getting an interview. Do they charge expatriate children ...
(1) There are rumours that ESF does give a slight preference to children who possess foreign citizenship, but they are just what they are, rumours, there is no material evidence to suggest that given two applicants with similar qualities they would admit the ex-pat child first. At the end of the day, the fact remains that the majority of ESF students are local children, so why ignore this fact and go picking on rumours? Have Hongkongers become so uptight that they get upset by even a minority of ex-pat children enjoying some benefits? Remember their parents pay Hongkong taxes too.
(2) Anyone, ex-pat or otherwise, who wants to jump the queue have to pay $500,000 for the Nomination Right.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-16 11:43
nintendo 發表於 12-10-16 09:35
你覺得佢地會因為你幾個 message 就唔鬧？
我自己個人就覺得，佢地係誤解又好，針對又好，都係算把啦。
A few messages won't change those who are already biased or have a bone to pick, but impartial people can still benefit from knowing the facts. If they don't see the facts they might even believe some of the junk which Mingpao was trying to tout (e.g. ESF charges "ultra-high" tuition fees).
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 12:23
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-10-16 12:30 編輯
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
"(1) There are rumours that ESF does give a slight preference to children who possess foreign citizenship, but they are just what they are, rumours, there is no material evidence to suggest that given two applicants with similar qualities they would admit the ex-pat child first."
I think what I observed are not rumors. There are discriminatory admission policy published by ESF. I would refer you to --- "Children who speak English as a first or alternative language but do not speak Cantonese and/or read and write Chinese characters" Group One (after the first three categories, namely, childrend of the ESF staff, sibilings of existing ESF children and Nomination Right by paying $400,000 or $500,000".
I cannot find one local children who cannot speak Cantonese or write simple Chinese characters. The net result is that if you are an expatriate children, you will have priority to local children. The ESF adeptly uses this policy to discrimate the local children yet the local parents do not know.
I have no intention to hurt the reputation of ESF. I am only speaking the facts. I have to declare my interest that my kids have not not studied or applied for admission to ESF.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 12:29
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
"(2) Anyone, ex-pat or otherwise, who wants to jump the queue have to pay $500,000 for the Nomination Right.
If the expatriate knows that he has the priority over the local children, why should he bother to
pay the $500,000 Nomination Right?
I should state my position that I have no objection and feel that equal grant should be made available to local students study at ESF, but not indiscrimiately to the whole ESF who adopts a discriminatory admission policy against the local students.
Regarding other international schools, they also adopt discriminatory admission policy against local people but they do not receive grants from the government (save for the land) and their purpose of setting up the international school is to serve its own citizen.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-16 12:34
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-16 12:36 編輯
Shootastar 發表於 12-10-16 12:23
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
"Children who speak English as a first or alternative language but do not speak Cantonese and/or read and write Chinese characters" ...
Does this mean "ex-pat" to you?
Any local Hongkonger can choose not to learn how to speak Cantonese or read/write Chinese characters if they so wish. You may not agree to their choice but it doesn't make them "ex-pat".
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 13:28
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
Yes you are absolutely correct. That is why I said that ESF is making use of this rule to discriminate local children because it is very rare that local children could not speak Cantonese (truly local people) or write simple chinese (if they speak Mandarin).
作者: annie40 時間: 12-10-16 13:43
回復 nintendo 的帖子
very agreed. 物竞天择, 要公平是mission impossible 啊! 要骂要改, 争取进入权力核心吧! 入了权力核心,出面有大把人骂您不公平了. Think it in other person's shoes!
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-16 13:58
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-16 14:22 編輯
Shootastar 發表於 12-10-16 13:28
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
discriminate local children because it is very rare that local children could not speak Cantonese (truly local people) ...
What is "truly local people"? Are ethnic Chinese children born in Hongkong but don't speak Cantonese and read/write Chinese characters "not truly local people"? Should we stop giving benefits to these not truly local people?
If a local Hongkonger fails to or choose not to learn Cantonese and read/write Chinese then he/she becomes "not truly local" and so should have some of his/her entitled benefits taken away?
You are really drifting into murky and dangerous waters now.
作者: 112200 時間: 12-10-16 14:28
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
I have objection IF govt subsidise HK local children on studying in international school. But should coverage all Internation schools in HK, but not just ESF.
For those expat, no matter they choose to study HK local school or Internation school, they should not get any benefit fro HK govt, They need to pay higher than HK local children, no matter in HK local school, DSSS school or ESF group schools.
作者: 112200 時間: 12-10-16 14:33
回復 flashingcat 的帖子
No, Expat no ned to pay tax to HK Govt, becasue they suppose pay to their home country instead, unless there is some spcial case like they are urning to a HK resident.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 15:27
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
"What is "truly local people"? Are ethnic Chinese children born in Hongkong but don't speak Cantonese and read/write Chinese characters "not truly local people"? Should we stop giving benefits to these not truly local people?"
My answer: Yes, they are local kids no doubt. They should receive subsidy (which I have always advocates and agreed). However, to be realistic, there are very little of local kids who are born in Hong Kong but do not speak Cantonese or write simple Chinese characters. Of course, there are exceptions such as one of their parents are foreigner buy such number should be not much (Eurasians). You know more than me the number if your kids study in ESF. What I said is ESF is making use of this rule to discriminate the large number of local kids who speak Cantonese and/or write simple Chinese characters.
"If a local Hongkonger fails to or choose not to learn Cantonese and read/write Chinese then he/she becomes "not truly local" and so should have some of his/her entitled benefits taken away?"
My answer: I think the number of students born to Cantonese speaking parents who choose not to speak Cantonese at home and/or choose not to learn writing Chinese characters should be very small. If they are Hong Kong permanent resident, I see no reason why they receive no subsidy. However if the ESF admission policy is viewed objectively, it is used to discriminate local kids who speak and/or write Chinese. It is a favor in disguise to the non-Cantonese and non- Chinese writing kids, i.e. to foreigners.
You are really drifting into murky and dangerous waters now.
My answser: Are you saying that the dropping of the discriminatory admission policy by ESF should be deprecated? ESF is creating murky water to blur the local people. I am just to expose its discrimnatory policy out of the murky (but not dangerous) waters.
作者: annie40 時間: 12-10-16 15:42
It's not true. All expatriants working in HK companies would need to pay tax to HKSAR. I paid it for a guilo employee from New Zealand long ago.
Of course, some expatriants are employed by overseas companies that their income taxes should pay to home countries.
就算鬼老没有交香港税, 依然对香港繁荣经济有功劳, 不一定没资格读ESF的. 如果再要计清计清楚, 父母非常有本事, 交多点税, 他们的孩子应否申请书时同时交税单, 不用interview, 就可以直入ESF.
作者: flashingcat 時間: 12-10-16 15:48 標題: 回覆：112200 的帖子
no, u are wrong. we are US citizen but need to pay for both hk tax and US federal tax! that's for sure! and Japanese friends around are also paying HK tax.
作者: flashingcat 時間: 12-10-16 15:49 標題: 回覆：annie40 的帖子
agree. in fact I am paying tax in both countries.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-16 15:52
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-16 16:32 編輯
Shootastar 發表於 12-10-16 15:27
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
Are you saying that the dropping of the discriminatory admission policy by ESF ...
Simply put, their admission policy is NOT discriminatory to local Hongkongers, you don't loose any opportunity simply by being a local, and most ESF students are indeed locals, this is the undeniable fact.
You're saying "ah but local Hongkongers must know Cantonese so they are being discriminated against", but this is NOT the same thing. Many Hongkongers choose not to learn Cantonese and read/write Chinese, may be for reasons you don't agree to, but that is their choice and they have their very valid reasons. You may think they are then "not truly local", and that is where things get murky and dangerous.
作者: md23 時間: 12-10-16 16:08
112200 發表於 12-10-16 14:33
回復 flashingcat 的帖子
No, Expat no ned to pay tax to HK Govt, becasue they suppose pay to their h ...
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 16:43
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-10-17 11:26 編輯
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
"Simply put, their admission policy is NOT discriminatory to local Hongkongers, you don't loose any opportunity simply by being a local, and most ESF students are indeed locals, this is the undeniable fact."
My comments: I am good at writing and speaking English. My kids also do. However, they lost the opportunity to study at ESF because they speak Cantonese at home and they know how to write Chinese. That is why I feel its admission policy is discriminatory against 98% of local kids. Please forgive me quoting an inaccurate figure if it is less than 98% because the Chinese population here is 98% and seldom who do not speak Cantonese and/or know how to write simple Chinese characters.
That explains why they admit many Indians and Pakastans because they are local Hong Kong people but do not speak Cantonese and/or write Chinese character at home. Personally, I absolutely agree that ethnic minority should receive the same subsidy as local kids do so long as they are Hong Kong permanent residents.
"You're saying "ah but local Hongkongers must know Cantonese so they are discriminated", but this is NOT the same thing. Many Hongkongers choose not to learn Cantonese and read/write Chinese, may be for reasons you don't agree to, but that is their choice and they have their very valid reasons."
My comments: I agree that there are some local families who do not speak Cantonese at home or do not know how to write Chinese characters but the number should not be many. Why should such kids receive priority to other "normal" local kids? If the kid is an Eurasian, I think most local parents would speak Cantonese with their kids and teach them Chinese while the foreign parents would speak English with the kids so as to make them bilingual. Everyone has the choice on what to speak at home and what language to learn. However, if ESF wants to public grant across the board in favour of their students, it should change its discrimintory admission policy (against those who speak Cantonese at home or choose to learn Chinese language).
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-16 17:27
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-16 17:39 編輯
Shootastar 發表於 12-10-16 16:43
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
I am good at writing and speaking English. My kids also do. However, they loose the opportunity to study at ESF because they speak Cantonese at home and they know how to write Chinese. That is why I feel its admission policy is discriminatory against 98% of local kids ...
Nope, this is not what discrimination is. Your kids chose (or rather you chose for them) to learn Cantonese and read/write Chinese, for good reasons too, but essentially you have lessened your kid's chances to study at ESF. You could have chosen not to let your kids learn so they have a better chance, don't ask me why you should do that, it may be a ludicrous choice to you but a sensible one to others. In any case, it is a conscious decision that YOU have made for your kids knowing what the consequences are.
Real discrimination is your kids are rejected simply because they do not have citizenship of a certain country or a certain skin colour, and this is NOT what is happening at ESF.
To cut a long story short, if you agree that the majority (I would say 70% or more) of ESF students are locals and should enjoy benefits like other locals, I don't see why you're so concerned about the remaining 30% non-locals. Now don't go back into the loop of saying those 70% locals are "not truly locals" because they don't speak Cantonese.and read/write Chinese.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 17:44
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
"Nope, this is not what discrimination is. Your kids chose (or rather you chose for them) to learn Cantonese and read/write Chinese, for good reasons too, but essentially you have lessened your kid's chances to study at ESF. You could have chosen not to let your kids learn so they have a better chance, don't ask me why you should do that, it may be a ludicrous choice to you but a sensible one to others. In any case, it is a conscious decision that YOU have made for your kids knowing what the consequences are."
My comment: From Oxford dictionary, "discrimination" means "against / in favour of somebody" or treating a person or group differently. Why should I be treated differently if I speak mother tongue with my kids and teach them the language of my own root? Why should those foreigners or those who do not speak Cantonese or do not know how to write Chinese characters have more favor than my kids - if ESF receives the same government grant.
"Real discrimination is your kids are rejected simply because they do not have citizenship of a certain country or a certain skin colour, and this is NOT what is happening at ESF."
My comment: ESF does not discriminate one's citizenship or the skin color of the students, it is for sure. But it discriminates the majority of the local kids who speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters.
To cut a long story short, if you agree that the majority (I would say 70% or more) of ESF students are locals and should enjoy benefits like any other locals, I don't see why you're so concerned about the remaining 30% non-locals. Now don't go back into the loop of saying those 70% locals are "not truly locals" because they don't speak Cantonese.
My comment: The simple answer is the discriminatory admission policy adopted by ESF and it is not fair that not each Hong Kong kid has the same right and chance to be admitted in a school which uses government grants.
作者: Maoku 時間: 12-10-16 17:59 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+nintendo+於+12-10-16+08:56+
原帖由 nintendo 於 12-10-16 發表
本帖最後由 nintendo 於 12-10-16 08:56 編輯
每個地方都有各樣唔同的政策，好難話邊度點做就要跟。
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 18:00
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-10-17 11:30 編輯
Manstap, I wish to reply your comments as follows:
"Maybe u need to expand yr circle of life. Many local kids studying in intl kind. dont speak or write Chinese.
My comment: I have two kids who had studied in an IS for over ten years. According to my observation, they do not speak Cantonese at school but they do at home. They do not do so because they respect the foreign students. They use a common language - English at school. More than 80% of the students choose to study Chinese as their second languages, those include the foreign students.
"u may need to observe the kids from international kind. Many of them cant speak or write Mand and Cantonese."
My comment: The aforesaid comments are based on my observation from my kids' international school. Contrary to your thinking, over 80% of the students choose to study Chinese as the second language at school.
"its just somebody here jealous and red eyes cos they didnt get offer in esf."
My comment: I am not jealous and have red eyes on the local kids who study at ESF. My kids have not applied for admission to ESF because of the fact that they speak Cantonese (their mother tongue) at home and know how to write the Chinese characters which is discriminated by the admission policy of ESF.
ESF is a very excellent school in terms of academic performance and certainly I would apply for admission if it drops its discriminatory admission policy. We are engaged in discussing whether government grant should be made across the board to every student at ESF.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 18:06
Manstrap, my further comments on the following point raised by you:
"if u are thinking in this way then why Harrows charging so expensive tuition and debenture to students but Gov impose so cheap rental for the use of the land?"
My comment: Government treats every international school in Hong Kong equally. Hong Kong government charges only a nominal sum of $1.00 on international schools so long as they are not set up for profit. Do I make any complain against Harrows on charging high school fee or debenture. The answer is no because they charge the same amount from each student (save those on scholarship) and they do not have any discriminatory admission policy. Further, they do not receive government grant to admit non-hong kong (local kids) favorably.
作者: 112200 時間: 12-10-16 18:23
回復 flashingcat 的帖子
There are many type of tax all all countries. For example Like in Canada, non canadian live there just need to pay GST/ PST, definietly not salary taa. Really curious ... are you paying SALARY TAX on both countries ?
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-16 18:29
Shootastar 發表於 12-10-16 17:44
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
The simple answer is the discriminatory admission policy adopted by ESF and it is not fair that not each Hong Kong kid has the same right and chance to be admitted in a school which uses government grants. ...
This should be my last reply in this discussion, and my last comment is ... Be content with what you have and what you have chosen. Life is a series of choices, each gain brought by a certain choice is often accompanied by a corresponding loss, so don't just look at other people's gains and your own losses, because you'll feel you have been unfairly short-changed all the time.
作者: WYmom 時間: 12-10-16 18:31
本帖最後由 WYmom 於 12-10-16 20:11 編輯
回復 112200 的帖子
In Canada, if you work there, you have to pay income tax... in HK, same thing. Many people pay income tax in two countries. Please read some tax law.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-16 18:43
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-16 18:55 編輯
The funny thing about this admission policy is that it singles out "Cantonese". The policy says Category One is for children who speak English as a first or alternative language but do not speak Cantonese and/or read and write Chinese characters." So teaching your HK kid to speak Putonghua is OK, but not Cantonese.
Anyway, I see at least 3 issues here. (1) Is it against the law? Did any parent who feel aggrieved ever report the case to 平等機會委員會? I don't know if there is a case here, but I believe people who are strongly against this policy should consider doing so. (2) Is the policy unfair to the HK kids at large? Personally, I would say "yes". One may argue that HK people have a choice. They could always choose not to teach their kids Cantonese. But let us not forget there are many families in Hong Kong where the parents are not proficient in English or where the kids are looked after during the daytime by their grandparents who speak only Cantonese. So for them, if they want their kids to get into ESF, their so-called "choice" is not to talk to or communicate with their kids? (3) Is it fair to the HK taxpayers? ESF is getting subsidies from HK Government and the money is coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. The parents who are given a "choice" not to talk to or communicate to their kids in Cantonese are also taxpayers. Is it fair to them?
On the argument that HK parents do always have a choice, I guess as an analogy, ESF could have said Category One is for children who have blonde hair. Even in such a case, one could still argue that HK parents could always choose to dye their kids' hair blonde. They have a choice, don't they? But wouldn't one think such a policy is silly and unfair? By the way, singling out Cantonese (as opposed to Putonghua, Indian language and all other languages) is to me also rather silly.
I have no vested interest in this matter as my kids have never applied to ESF. I respect ESF, but I do find this admission policy odd and outdated.
作者: flashingcat 時間: 12-10-16 18:54 標題: 回覆：112200 的帖子
yes. both hk and US. we need to file income tax back in US. of course have double tax avoidance agreement to protect, however, we need to pay for difference.
作者: flashingcat 時間: 12-10-16 18:55 標題: 回覆：WYmom 的帖子
haha, taxation law. this is the subject that u hate the most
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 19:03
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-10-17 11:34 編輯
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
"If your reasoning stands, then schools for disabled children would not get government grants. These schools only admit disabled children and by your reasoning are unfairly "discriminating" against able bodied children which are the majority."
My comment: I do not know what kind of disabled children's school you referred to. If you mean the school for the blind or deaf or Down's syndrome, they are the special schools for the special needs. The society should show compassion and support to these misfortunate group of students. We discuss here about whether the grant should be made to ESF across the board when it adopts a discriminatory admission policy against local kids who speak
their mother tongue (Cantonese) and know how to write Chinese characters (which is the root of their culture). Apparently, there is an obvious flaw on the example given by you.
This should be my last reply in this discussion, and my last comment is ... Be content with what you have and what you have chosen. Life is a series of choices, each gain brought by a certain choice is often accompanied by a corresponding loss, so don't just look at other people's gains and your own losses, because you'll feel you have been unfairly short-changed all the time.
My comment: If your kids study at ESF, I congratulate you because they receive a first class education by paying a substantially reduced school fees (when compared with those of other IS). From the right beginning, I advocate that each local students at ESF should receive the same grant from the Government as that given to local school. Our discussion is limited to whether Hong Kong public fund should be given to ESF across the board when it has its discriminatory admission policy against those who speak Cantonese and/or know how to write Chinese characters. Please do not think that I am jealous or have red eyes on those who could study at ESF. We are here to discuss a foundamental principle - whether the grant should be made to ESF for non-hong kong permanent resident who are favorably admitted through ESF's discriminatory admission policy. I stress again that I advocate and agree that similar grant should be given to the students who have the status of permanent resident of Hong Kong.
By the way, it is an endless topic to be debated in the open forum. I note that it is your last post. In any event, it is an enjoyable experience to share and debate with you on this hot topic.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-16 19:06
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
You have echoed clearly the points I made here.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-16 19:15
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-16 19:20 編輯
bobbycheung 發表於 12-10-16 18:43
By the way, singling out Cantonese (as opposed to Putonghua, Indian language and all other languages) is to me also rather silly. ...
Hahaha, I said I would stop but can't help in replying to this one, this is a real classic and I'm sure will be asked by many over and over again for years to come.
The purpose of singling out Cantonese was so that those entering ESF are the ones who CANNOT study in local schools, if your kid can speak Cantonese, then please send him/her to a local school and you'll get 9 years free education and all the various jetso.
The "silliness" arose when over the years the applicants have slowly changed from those who "CANNOT" to those who "DO NOT WANT TO". Most people don't have a big issue with these so-called "deserters", many want to be deserters themselves, but they may have an issue if some deserters could even be subsidized and do it cheap
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-16 20:33
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-16 21:17 編輯
回復 FattyDaddy 的帖子
I see. So what ESF really wants is to exclude everyone who is qualified to study in the local schools from Category One. That's the real aim of the admission policy. Why don't they say so expressly? Is it because they feel it's not diplomatically correct to say so expressly especially when they are getting subsidies from the parents of these excluded kids. So they say it in a discreet way by using Cantonese as a criteria.
Another question I have is this. They are equating a kid who do not speak Cantonese with a kid who can't go to local schools. Is it true that a non-Cantonese speaking kid can never study in a local school? I am wondering what happens to all those immigrants coming from mainland China to HK everyday. They know Putonghua but not a word of Cantonese. Are they qualified to go to local schools?
People should have an issue with what's fair and what's not. I don't mind when some people get subsidies and do it cheap. But at least, the criteria should not be based on something as silly as Cantonese speaking or non-Cantonese speaking. If ESF feels that priority should be given to expatriates who can't go to the local schools, they should say so expressly. Category Two should then be open to everyone else.
Lastly, may I ask you all a question? Like many families in HK, if you and your wife both go to work during the daytime and your kid is looked after by his grandparents who speak only Chinese. Your next door neighbour is exactly the same as you except that their kid is looked after by a maid from Philippines. You find that your next door neighbour's kid is in Category One whilst yours is in Category Two. Do you truly think it's fair? Would you still agree to the assetion that you really have a choice by asking the grandparents not to talk to your kid?
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-16 22:03
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-16 22:05 編輯
FattyDaddy,
Ex-pats? Hmm, did you bother to read what I wrote? All the time, I have been talking about the priority given to those go under Category One. What has this to do with the majority of ESF students who are expats or not? You said "the purpose of singling out Cantonese was so that those entering ESF are the ones who CANNOT study in local schools". Who are they? Local HK Chinese kids or expats?
作者: flashingcat 時間: 12-10-16 22:43
回復 flashingcat 的帖子
typo. should be I hate the most. Flashed back all my memories, I still hate to study taxation law and employment law
nightmare
作者: tay 時間: 12-10-16 23:06
interesting debate going on here.... Why don't we go back to the basics? ESF schools were started, pre-1997, to provide schooling to children that cannot study in local schools. These children are most straight-forwardly categorized as those who cannot speak Cantonese and cannot read/write Chinese. Honestly this is a fair categorisation for this purpose. The then government (pre-1997) funding ESF schools was not seen as a problem because there were a lot of British families in HK and such. If you think of it in another way, the government is actually being very generous in subsidizing education to both tax-paying local and non-local families, the former in local schools and the latter in ESF schools. This is really as simply as that. I haven't done any research myself, but it would make a more valid case of unfairness if the amount of subsidy per student in a local school is significantly smaller than that to an ESF student. If you are talking about the case where local families making all sorts of measures to make sure their children cannot speak Cantonese in order to be categorized as Cat 1, I think they are really just cheating their way into the system. So the cases being raised here as being unfair (eg child being taken care of by Cantonese-speaking grandparents vs English-speaking helper), these are cases of cheating so of course they are unfair. But this is the problem on the family, not on the rules of categorization.
so anyway i think the word 'discrimination' is too strong a word to use, because it implies wrongful, malicious intent. But really ESF is trying to be fair in providing affordable education to those truly non-Chinese speaking families who cannot go to local schools.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-16 23:21
I don't mind ESF getting subsidy and I don't even mind the expats getting the priority as Category One applicants. But I do mind ESF's silly policy of saying those who do speak Cantonese will go under Category Two. This has led to the ludicrous result of some HK parents deliberately stopping their kids from learning Chinese so that they could get into Category One. But once they manage to get in, these kids start learning Cantonese and Chinese freely. To me, it's only fair that everybody who are qualified to receive education in local schools (regardless of what language(s) they know or do not know) should go under Category Two so that everyone of us in HK should get the same admission ticket.
作者: hkparent 時間: 12-10-16 23:27
I agree that either ESF changes its admission policy or has its subsidy reduced to the same per head level as local schools - which may not be welcomed by parents wishing to apply). What can we do now? Shall we join forces to lobby the support of legislators?
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-16 23:35
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-16 23:45 編輯
回復 tay 的帖子
When ESF and everybody know that "some parents could cheat their way into the system", I think it's only right that ESF should close this loophole immediately. Otherwise, it will just continue to encourage parents taking the attitude that "if you don't cheat, you will lose out". In fact, as more and more parents getting their kids into Category One by "cheating", it will soon become a certainty that "if you don't cheat, you won't get in"
作者: tay 時間: 12-10-17 00:23
I believe they do put in measures to catch the cheats ie those claiming to not know cantonese. I mean if parents are ready to lie (the application form does ask if parents can speak Cantonese) in the application process to be cat 1 families, then one really shouldn't put the fault on ESF. I'm sure there are children out there that, in your opinion, being mis-categorized, but I don't think they are the majority. Certainly there are plenty of parents **trying** to cheat their way in but what is the success rate? Besides I think the admission policy stated in the website is a generalization, they probably have internal guidelines in categorizing the Cat 1s & 2s.
But on a side note, one should give credit to those who manage to put in extreme measures to prevent their child from learning Chinese.... Seriously I would have imagine it to be a very difficult thing to do (for a local family.... imagine having to speak english in family gatherings; never watching Chinese TV programs..... How weird is that??) 
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 01:10
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 01:24 編輯
回復 tay 的帖子
ESF's website says "ESF schools receive a subsidy from the Hong Kong Government to provide an education for English speaking children who can not access the local system."
http://www.esf.edu.hk/our-schools
There are parents who deliberately tell lies by pretending their kids know no Chinese. There are also others who deliberately stop their kids from learning Chinese. But the truth is that all of their kids can access the local system. They are "cheating". I don't understand why ESF has to resort to measures and internal guidelines etc. Wouldn't it be better just to stick to what is said in its own website?
Education Bureau's website says:-
Eligible children between the ages of six and fifteen, irrespective of sex, ethnic origin, religious or ethical belief, family status and physical or mental ability, have the right to enjoy basic education in public sector schools.
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_4405/information%20notes_ncs_sept%202012.pdf
My understanding is that all children holding a HK birth certificate or a HKID card are eligible children and they do have access to the local system. So basically all HK kids (regardless of whether they know Cantonese/Chinese or not) are entitled to go to local schools. It's just that in order to gain priority, some of them are pretending that they can't access the local system.
Knowing fully well there is a loophole in the system but taking no action to correct it, I don't think it's the right approach by a school.
On your side note, I feel it's equally weird to give credit or priority to those who cheat or attempt to cheat.
作者: FattyDaddy 時間: 12-10-17 01:23
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-10-17 17:29 編輯
I have nothing to add but having been in this forum for a while I have seen enough discussions about ESF, no matter how the discussion started or what the original topic was, inevitably the discussion would lead towards this Cat 1 & 2 and learning Cantonese/Chinese thing. Allow me to summarize how this particular discussion went:-
ESF continues to get subvention from the government ...
... that is unfair because ESF is an "elite school" targeting ex-pats, they shouldn't be subsidized.
But the majority of ESF students are local Hongkongers and not ex-pats ...
... these local Hongkongers are not truly locals, they don't speak Cantonese and don't read/write Chinese, ESF "discriminates" against Cantonese speakers, e.g. my children.
But any local Hongkonger can choose not to learn Cantonese or read/write Chinese ...
... that is ludicrous, how can a local Hongkonger not learn? They must know how to speak Cantonese and read/write Chinese and they're just lying when they claim they don't know. If they purposely don't learn it, that is cheating, they will still learn after they have "cheated" their way into ESF.
If they genuinely have no interest and never learn it in their entire life, is that still cheating ...
... that is just plain weird, speaking English in family gatherings and not watching Cantonese/Chinese TV? That is so weird, I'm afraid you won't be able to find such a weird family / person !!!
I'll leave it at that
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 01:38
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 01:43 編輯
Right, any local Hongkonger can choose not to learn Cantonese or read/write Chinese. But a lot of them choose not to learn it for the sole purpose that they will get into Category One. If there were not that admission policy, I wonder how many parents would stop their kids from learning Chinese altogether. What is funny is that once they get in, I know many who will send their kids to learn Chinese outside school by private tuition as they feel what's taught at school is not sufficient. I wonder what causes the 180 degree of change of attitute towards Chinese.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 01:47
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 01:48 編輯
FattyDaddy,
I am afraid you won't be able to find such a person.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 02:25
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 02:30 編輯
FattyDaddy,
I am not juding others based on my own circumstances. (I omitted the words "limited knowledge" because I don't know on what basis you come to a conclusion that it's limited). I know parents who cheat. In their heart, they believe Chinese is important. But they deliberately stop their kids from learning it for the time being in order to get into Category One. This is their sole purpose and reason. Once they get in, they will change their approach and attitute towards Chinese immediately and dramatically. To me, whether these "cheaters" will never learn Chinese for the rest of their lives is irrelevant. They cheat and gain unfair advantage over others. If they had not cheated, they would have been in Category Two and they might not be able to get into ESF. By unfair means, they manage to secure a place which might belong to another student. What they do afterwards won't undo their wrongdoing.
作者: WYmom 時間: 12-10-17 09:17
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
Just wonder if ESF really categorise those Chinese parents who "cheat" as you said as Cat 1? As I know, the schools require applicants to state the parents' languages and care takers languages, place of birth, passport etc. and they also ask the kids...
Besides, though you think that many students are local Chinese, there are in fact many Singaporeans, Japanese, Koreans, "mixed" kids with Asian faces ...their parents have settled in HK to work for years. There are also a lot of HK people returned back after immigration and their kids have been brought up in an English-speaking environment for a few years. So these kids naturally apply for ESF instead of local schools.
Moreover, a lot of local Chinese parents are civil servants who enjoy Education allowance from the govt. There maybe some local Chinese parents trying to cheat due to the more intense competition, yet they may not meet the other criteria as said.
And, apart from ESF, the United College Li Po Chun is also receiving DSS subsidies for all the years without any reduction, and 50% of their students come from overseas. If then,is it more unfair than ESF to subsidise those 50% in LPC who are really non-HK residents for so many years while no one will ever challenge?!
作者: cowmoon 時間: 12-10-17 09:49
本帖最後由 cowmoon 於 12-10-17 10:09 編輯
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
I declare that I have no relationship with ESF and my kids have not applied to ESF schools before.
For the point of view of a local parents and taxpayer, I find that there are some loopholes in the current school mission, governance and administration. If all those loopholes are cleared, I think that most taxpayers may be more willing to continue subsidize the schools:
1. The mission of the schools: If the mission of the schools is to provide education to expat kids, it should stick to this mission. Don't say "70% of students are local people" as selling point because it is actually against and failing its mission.
2. Whether HK need to subsidize non-local education for expat kids is another issue. It may not be a bad idea if we want to attract expat to work in HK e.g. NET for all schools in HK
3. Providing non-local education does not mean that the schools are outside the supervision of the government. It seems that the school management is not accountable to anyone. As a taxpayer, what I am skeptical is how the money is used. In particular, recently the school raise school fees every year and all kinds of capital levy and nomination rights ... where is the money gone ? I think it is not very fair to compare the tuition fee with other IS because ESF schools are the only IS which have 30 students per class. As a wild guess, sometimes I would think, are the school managers receiving super high salaries comparable to MNC CEO? To me, the financial situation of ESF is a complete black-box. And I (and the general public) genuinely have no time to do the research. If the schools are under EDB supervision, I will be much more comfortable about subsidizing it.
4. The admission policy ... I agree very much with bobbycheung but I would like to elaborate a bit more:-
a. If it is clarified that the schools are for expat kids, it should rectify the situation to make sure that it complies with the mission. The current situation - 70% students are local kids while there are expat complaining that they cannot find a place in ESF ... is just unacceptable. ESF admission office is definitely not executing well with the very loose and a bit silly Cat 1/Cat 2 (Know cantonese / Don't know cantonese) policy. I think that the Cat 1 / Cat 2 categorization should be best done by EDB. I believe that EDB, while very bureaucratic, will be unbiased to identify those real Cat 1 cases (e.g. expat with working visas and not ethnic Chinese). Then all the rest will be Cat 2 and can compete fairly for the remaining seats just like DSS.
b. Currently kids from ESF kindergartens have privilege which is definitely unfair to other kids and kindergartens. Why do graduates from a particular privately-run kindergarten have priority to get a place into a government subsidized school? There is no such thing in local system.
If ESF do not want to lose its freedom from government supervision, why don't they just "let go" of the government subsidy and become PIS status, just like RC and DC. RC and DC are actually doing very well and their admission policy is much more transparent to local parents than ESF schools.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 10:51
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 10:52 編輯
FattyDaddy,
Of course there are people who think Chinese is not important and they won't bother to learn it. But we are talking about cheaters here and they are HK people. How many HK people think that Chinese/Cantonese is so unimportant that they should not learn a word of it? I am sure the number of cheaters I described far exceed the number of people you described (if there is any). If you think my knowledge is limited, then yours has got to be very limited. 
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 13:37
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 14:00 編輯
FattyDaddy,
I am sure some people may call these people 醒目仔 (which they are if we look at it from another angle). They play by the rules and some people think there is nothing wrong with that. Everybody knows there is a "loophole". If you don't take advantage of it, there is no one to blame. These people do not irritate me. What irritate me is the ESF category One admission policy. It put the parents in a dilemma. If you teach your kid Chinese/Cantonese, he will lose the priority.
Anyway, if the present policy remains unchanged, more and more people will claim (truely or falsely) that their kids know no Chinese/Cantonese. As the number of Category One applicants swell, those who truly can't access the local system will soon find themselves unable to get in. This may well explain why there are expats complaining that they cannot find a place in ESF as described by cowmoon.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 15:04
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 15:09 編輯
FattyDaddy,
OK, let's say there are locals who genuinely have no interest in Chinese. But the fact remains that they are local HK people who have full access to the local system. (They choose not to learn Chinese would not bar them from getting into the local system. The Education Bureau website has provisions dealing with any local eligible children who do not speak Chinese). Why should they be given priority in ESF Category One? As the ESF website clearly says, "ESF schools receive a subsidy from the Hong Kong Government to provide an education for English speaking children who can not access the local system." It's aiming at those who can not join it (rather than those who choose not to join it). In fact, this is what you told me.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 15:28
回復 WYmom 的帖子
As I said, I don't mind ESF or LPC getting subsidy. I don't mind if the subsidy goes to expats or HK local students. I get no benefit (or jetso as FattyDaddy said), thats' OK with me. I don't mind if the genuine expats/foreigners who can't go to the local schools get priority under Category One. What bothers me is the wording of this ESF Category One policy which is giving some parents (who otherwise would not be qualified) an unfair advantage over others. Why should ESF facilitate parents to jump (or attempt to jump) the queue?
作者: torunpoland 時間: 12-10-17 15:31
回復 tay 的帖子
[size=15.454545021057129px]Not only it is difficult, but also a huge waste of bilingual environment if some young kids are trying not to learn Cantonese / Chinese here in Hong Kong. It's always the best side Hong Kong parents can think about while raising a kid here instead of US or Canada etc (if such door is opened to your family) - to learn English and Chinese at the same time, though difficult and different levels may be achieved, you can after all have the best of two words if you have the trick carefully exercised.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 15:51
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 15:57 編輯
FattyDaddy,
First, it's your choice not to teach your kids Chinese in the first place. Secondly, there are kids coming from China everyday who do not know Cantonese or traditional Chinese characters. What happens to them? Should they all go to ESF because they can't get through local schools?
I have said it so many times that I am afraid I have "bad breath". ESF schools receive a subsidy from the Hong Kong Government to provide an education for English speaking children who can not access the local system. Why should the locals who have full access to the local system be given priority under Category One? Why should they have the same priority as those who genuinely can't get into the local schools?
There is an important distinction between those who can't access the local system and those who choose not to access the local system. For example, if I think kindergarten education is not important and I don't send my kid to any kindergarten, can I say my kid can't access the local system because he skips kindergarten and can't now therefore get through the local schools? Or I choose not to teach my kids any maths. Can I say my kids can't access the local system because he won't be able to catch up the maths taught in local schools?
Anyway, I can't see how we could agree on this matter. Parents could make their own judgment.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 15:57
回復 WYmom 的帖子
The issue here is whether ESF should receive grants across the board (for all the students there).
ESF schools are great. Many local parents want to put the kids there. It is perfectly alright for ESF schools admit whatever students they like if they do not receive public fund. Many IS in Hong Kong sets out the policy that the top priority is for the students from their own countries or their education systems. The local people is on the bottom of the priority. That is fine because the very purpose of setting up the school is to cater the needs of those expatriates' kids.
No one says that ESF schools should not admit students from Singapore, Japan, Philippines and other countries. However, ESF adopts a discriminatory admission policy against those who speak month tongue (Cantonese) and/or know how to write Chinese characters. In reality, there are some local kids (meaning HK permanent residents, including Indian, Paklistan, Japanese, Singaporean) fit this definition and obtain priority of admission. There is no problem for that. Setting aside the places for these kids, the balance of the available seats would go to the othe persons in the Category One priority. If they do not cheat (I am sure they will not), their kids would have a lower priority than the foreigners or expatriates' kids.
Apparently, the admission policy is designed to admit foreigner' kids. As a Hong Kong taxpayer, I do not think it is fair and reasonable that our public money is used to favour those kids. If ESF drops its discriminatory admission policy, it would help preserve the integrity of many family by pretending they do not speak Cantonese and/or not know how to write Chinese characters. It would also help to maintain a fair and balanced schools - not to favour a section of the people at the expenses of the public funds.
If ESF drops its discriminatory admission policy, I think the opposition to the grant of fund (on across the board basis) should be substantially reduced although it is still debatable why should the taxpayers subsidise the non Hong Kong permanent residents.
By the way, I cannot find out the information that LPC receives annual grant from HK government as the other local schools does. Could you please point out your source of information for my reference. Thanks.
作者: tay 時間: 12-10-17 16:00
wow wow wow... let's just cool down a bit first shall we?
no system/policy/rules is perfect, and some are bound to think that there are flaws or unfairness. it is true that some may feel the government should not subsidize an international school that is not regulated by the government, and more importantly with an admission prioritization from public money. even the local school allocation system has a lot of complaints about being unfair (eg with the points scheme) but even some elite DSS schools have hidden prioritization (parents connections etc), but unlike ESF, they would interview you anyways to make you feel like you actually have a chance in getting in, whereas for ESF, you won't even get the interview. So I guess that's upsetting a lot of parents out there. In fact, wouldn't everyone be happier if ESF does not make public of the prioritization rules, and interview everyone who applied (though they continue to categorize kids into Cat 1s & 2s but behind closed doors)? But the application fee will probably be bumped to $1000, but that's alright isn't for the sake of fairness?
so anyways I think it's impractical to ask the government to stop subsidizing ESF now because it will affect a lot of people (think about how many students they have!). but it's also silly to ask the school to offer the local curriculum, because it won't be an international school anymore and what happens to the existing students? i just think it'll be a slow and gradual process (which I believe is on-going between ESF and the government) to re-define ESF's position.
and by the way, my children are Cat 2s as they go to a local kindy, but i don't feel so strongly about the admission rules as some of you do. yet i still apply anyway coz you know, i still buy mark 6 once in a while. you never know when's your lucky day! 
and besides giving the $$$ to ESF is better than putting the money to support policies like the national education curriculum.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 16:28
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 16:28 編輯
FattyDaddy,
Regarding your comment:-
'advantage' requires you to choose not to learn Chinese, and everyone has that choice. There is a difference between not having the choice and having it but not choosing it.
I will try to make my point for the last time.
Firstly, the "advantage" conferred by Category One is not meant for the local HK Chinese people who have full access to the local system (but who now claim to have "difficulties" in get through the local schools because they choose not to learn any Chinese/Cantonese).
Secondly, let me give you an example to illustrate my point. There are 2 queues in the bus stop. The 1st queue is for disabled people who will get priority. The 2nd queue is for all others. The rule is that you can join (or at least attempt to join) the 1st queue if you say you are disabled. Now there are people lying and pretending to be disabled. There are others who kick themselves so as to sustain injuries and qualified as disabled. All these people have one aim ie. to get into the 1st queue. Now according to your reasoning, everyone has a choice saying they are disabled. You say there is nothing unfair about it because everyone can make that claim. If you choose not to lie about it, then you can't really complain. Is this right? Is this fair?
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 16:35
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 16:36 編輯
FattyDaddy,
No, I am not upset about any mainland Chinese children studying in ESF. I said I don't mind about the subsidy going to which ESF students, be they expat, locals, Asian, mainland China kids.... It's OK with me. I am not affected by this ESF admission policy because my kids have never applied to ESF. The school they go to receive no subsidy, that's fine too. I have no complaint. I said all these only because i believe the admission policy is unfair, silly and outdated.
作者: manstap 時間: 12-10-17 16:43
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 16:43
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 16:56 編輯
FattyDaddy,
//Nope, I'm saying everyone can choose to chop off a leg to join queue 1 if they so choose. You're saying no one would make such a ludicrous choice so they must all be cheaters, understand now?//
Nope, I am saying a lot of those joining queue 1 are falsely claiming they have chopped off their legs. Even those who actually chop off their legs will have their legs fixed and running as soon as they get onto the bus. Understand now?
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 16:46
回復 manstap 的帖子
My kids can apply to DBS, DGS, La Salle or any school I like. If they fail to gain admission, it is their problem. For ESF, it is the problem of the discriminatory admission policy. My kids could not apply because they speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters. This is the point I stressed many times.
作者: WYmom 時間: 12-10-17 16:53
本帖最後由 WYmom 於 12-10-17 17:08 編輯
回復 Shootastar 的帖子
LPC is a DSS school - a fact known for years!! See the link below. Everyday there are so many policies blamed by different people to be unfair... unfair to distribute $6000 to some but not all residents, unfair to set asset limit to seniors, unfair to give education allowance to some civil servants, unfair to give subsidies to Mr. A taxpayer but not Mr. B taxpayer...
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr99-00/english/panels/ed/papers/e838-01.pdf
Is there anything in the world really fair? Maybe communism when everyone will share the same is the fairest system!
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 16:55
回復 manstap 的帖子
I am not jealous. How could I be? To be honest, I really can't think of a reason why I should be jealous. I am saying the ESF Category One admission policy is stupid. It enables people to jump the queue by lying. Its requirement of non-Cantonese speaking and/or Chinese reading or writing is unreasonable. It tries to use this "criteria" to distingush between applicants who can or cannot access the local system. It doesn't work. Worse still, it creates a loophole for some to take advantage of.
作者: manstap 時間: 12-10-17 16:57
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 17:22
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-10-17 19:01 編輯
回復 WYmom 的帖子
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Yes LPC is a DSS school receiving subsidy from Government for the 114 local students. Each year it admits 57 local students. The subsidies only goes to the local students.
As for the foreign students, as far as I know, they are on the full fee basis. The non-local students recieve no government fund. That's why the charity sets up a number of scholarship for them to study in Hong Kong. It is a fact known ever since it is established sometimes in 90+.
It is exactly the point I want to make - ESF should not make use of the government fund to subsidise the non-local kids if its admission policy is designed to discriminate local kids who speak Cantonese and/or know how to write Chinese characters.
If you read my posts, you will know my stand that all ESF local students (meaning Hong Kong permanent residents including Indian, Pakistans, Singaporeans, Japanese, even Europeans) should receive the same subsidy as each local kids in local school has.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 17:33
回復 manstap 的帖子
"ESF is a school teach in English but NOT teaching english."
My comments: I agree in total.
"Cat 1 is the priority cos they teach in the same way they teach in UK . Native language.
ESF dont accept those who are not native speaking whats the problem?"
My comments: This is exactly the fallacy of the admission policy. My kids speak English as good as native English speakers. However, they could not apply because they also speak mother tongue and know how to write Chinese characters as well.
"They accept and allow any one to apply for those speaking and writing Cantonese as i said but only in Cat 2 less priority."
My comments: This reinforces my view that the ESF adopts a discriminatory admission policy. Cantones speaking students are the second class students even though they could speak native English. Why should someone speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters should be in the 2nd Category while his English is as good as someone who does not speak Cantonese and/or know how to write Chinese characters.
There is no perfect world. I dont think as an adult there are many things around us are already discriminatory.
My comments: I agree that there is no perfect world. But the overt discrimination adopted by ESF should be deprecated.
"Discriminatory is the way to pick. Just like DBS DGS, eveyone could apply but only those who pass the interview can receive the tick of enty. Same here in ESF, even u have sblings, u have the chance of interview, if u failed u failed. Even the introduction of $500K NR, they only hve priority of interview not a direct entrance. If they failed during the interview the money will be refundedand no place for the kids."
My comments: We are talking ESF's Category one policy (which I say is discriminatory) but you switch to other policy. In any event, my kids can apply to DBS, DGS etc and still have the chance as others. However, my kids could not apply to ESF because they speak Cantonese and know how to write Chinese characters.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 12-10-17 17:50
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 12-10-17 18:05 編輯
FattyDaddy,
I see, that's what you are getting at. I said no one because "cheaters" are those:-
(1) whose kids know Chinese/Cantonese but who, for the sole purpose of getting into Category One, would lie and pretend they do not know.
(2) who think that Chinese is important but they want to hold it off for the sole purpose of getting into Category One. As soon as they manage to get into ESF, they will teach their kids Chinese/Cantonese intensively.
I said there's no one because those who choose not to learn Chinese/Cantonese in their entire lives did not abstrain from learning for the sole purpose of getting into Category One. They are not "cheaters" by definition. So you won't find "cheaters" who never learn Chinese in their entire lives.
Anyway, you may think it's 捉字蝨. But when I said no one, it's also meant to be a joke or something to just to annoy you (just as you did to me).
Having said all these, I am still of the opinion that Category One is not meant for the HK local kids who for whatever reason choose not to learn Chinese temporarily or for the rest of their lives.
作者: PoohsBaby 時間: 12-10-17 18:03
Heated discussion on ESF subvention and "discrimatory" application process 
. The fact is HK is now part of Mainland and we should review these legacy policies.
ESF must open up their books and follow the DSS Scheme if they want to get subvention
from Govt. Why are they using taxpayers money to provide education to non-locals?
They should really get rid of this discrimatory Cat 1 and Cat 2 labelling if they want Govt. money.
There are plenty of International schools for non-locals and no one stops them from applying to
DSS or Private schools.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 18:35
回復 PoohsBaby 的帖子
It is an enjoyable experience to have heated debate with delicated parents like FattyDaddy, WYMom, Manstap, Bobbycheung and others. The more debates we have, the more we learn from others. Remember, please do not have any hard feelings towards others even if your view is shared by others. That's the fact of life.
作者: Maoku 時間: 12-10-17 18:38 標題: 回覆：ESF schools Futher $$$$
Two issues should be clearly defined.
1. The positive discrimination policy of giving priority to those cannot speak Cantonese for getting entry to local school is to protect the minority to have fair chance of receiving education that fits their language needs. For a civilized and developed city, we should have this policy upheld. I think public funds can be used on this not just for the sake of attracting foreign talents but also from equity angle.
2. The issue then comes to how ESF screens the applicant who really deserve the Cat 1 priority, ie to establish a mechanism of identifying those who could not have the chance of going to mainstream school as the policy described. To be more exact, it is to detect those who should have otherwise being able to study in mainstream local schools be false classified as Cat 1. So, this is more an enforcement issue indeed which EDB need to step in to avoid abuse.
In fact, ESF runs 2 private independent schools that receive no recurrent subsidy that offers the choices to local parents who wish to have their kids to study in environment very similar to IS. My girl studies in one of them. If possible, on par with students who study in mainstream school, govt should consider voucher system indeed.
Just humble views as food for thought.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 18:49
本帖最後由 Shootastar 於 12-10-17 18:58 編輯
回復 Maoku 的帖子
"1. The positive discrimination policy of giving priority to those cannot speak Cantonese for getting entry to local school is to protect the minority to have fair chance of receiving education that fits their language needs. For a civilized and developed city, we should have this policy upheld. I think public funds can be used on this not just for the sake of attracting foreign talents but also from equity angle. "
My comments: I have always advocated that local ethnic minority should receive the same subsidy as the local kids so long as they are HOng Kong permanent residents. There is no doubt about that. The government has also set up a number of government schools to cater the needs of the ethnic minority i.e. Kadorie Government School, Hotung Government School etc. If they want to learn Chinese, they can join local education system. Our education system is fair to the ethnic minority. What is unfair is the discriminatory admission policy of ESF not to give equal priority of those who speak Cantonese and/or know how to write Chinese characters.
"2. The issue then comes to how ESF screens the applicant who really deserve the Cat 1 priority, ie to establish a mechanism of identifying those who could not have the chance of going to mainstream school as the policy described. To be more exact, it is to detect those who should have otherwise being able to study in mainstream local schools be false classified as Cat 1. So, this is more an enforcement issue indeed which EDB need to step in to avoid abuse. "
My comments: I think you miss the point. Its policy is used to give favoritism to those non-local kids on the public funds. I congratulate each and every one who is admitted to ESF because the schools provide a first class education to the kids.There is no doubt about that if we check its average IB score or college placements each year, no matter they choose not to learn Chinese or pretend that they do not know.
In fact, ESF runs 2 private independent schools that receive no recurrent subsidy that offers the choices to local parents who wish to have their kids to study in environment very similar to IS. My girl studies in one of them. If possible, on par with students who study in mainstream school, govt should consider voucher system indeed.
My comments: I totally agree with you that the Government should use the voucher system so that your girl is also benefitted from the public fund, which she should be entitled because she is a local kid and you are a taxpayer.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 18:53
回復 cowmoon 的帖子
Thank you for your cogent analysis.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 18:56
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
"I can't really call myself a dedicated parent as I am really just a nosy (and noisy) outsider when it comes to ESF. I think the points raised by cowmoon are far more important than mine."
Bobbycheung,
I am also an outsider too. My kids studied in an IS which explicitly said that local students are in the lowest priority as far as admission is concerned. I fully understand why it is so because they set up the schools to cater the needs of their citizens. Only if they have vacancy, will they admit local students. They receive no government funds. This is fair and reasonable.
作者: HKTHK 時間: 12-10-17 19:09
Maoku> Well said. HK needs to be able to provide education to ethnic minorities and expats who chose to stay and work in HK. Otherwise, HK is not competitive as a city. These schools should receive subsidies and for me personally, I don't care whether it is above or below the level of local schools. This is no different than governments providing tax breaks to companies to relocate their headquarters or factories.
The problem as you point out is the way to define who should qualify for these "benefits". There is no perfect way but those who do not speak Cantonese at home seems like a decent solution. For those who want to educate their kids in English but not Chinese, that is their personal choice. And if it is for the sole reason to get into ESF schools, so be it. That is NOT cheating. If people speaks Cantonese at home and fraudulently fills in the application otherwise, that is cheating. But I don't see how choosing to not educate your kids in Chinese is cheating. Clearly not in the spirit of things but no different than any tax avoidance strategy used by people and company on a daily basis.
作者: Shootastar 時間: 12-10-17 19:20
回復 HKTHK 的帖子
HKYHK
I want to educate my children in English and want to place them in ESF, but I could not do so because they speak Cantonese at home and know how to write Chinese characters.
The problem of ESF is its outdated, colonial admission policy.
| 歡迎光臨 教育王國 (/) |
Powered by Discuz! X1.5 |