Does EFS have the obligation to help the expats?

umom

.........

Maoku

原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 13-01-24 發表
Why not indeed, so lobby for that, or alternatively lobby for a voucher system where government mone ...

Agree 100%!

FattyDaddy

shadeslayer 發表於 13-1-24 13:27
Why don't we first subsidize all PIS who normall have 90%+ HK residents? ...

Why not indeed, so lobby for that, or alternatively lobby for a voucher system where government money subsidize the person instead of directly subsidizing the school, few people would be against that, especially the voucher system.

Why waste effort arguing for a cut to a few schools just because they have a minority of ex-pats studying in them? Who will benefit from such a cut? No one. Will education be any better in Hongkong by making these schools more expensive? No.

FattyDaddy

JJsMama 發表於 13-1-24 10:14
HK taxpayers are paying children of well-to-do Hong Kong families a premier international education.  If so, shouldn't all be getting the same? ...

If you believe those who attend ESF schools are from well off families, then you are truly, as you said, barking up the wrong tree, but having said that, I agree that quality education from ESF or otherwise should be affordable to all Hongkongers, if someone like Jake van der Kamp resents ESF for receiving subvention and he would also like one (as he said in his article), then he should lobby the government for one instead of suggesting it to be taken away from ESF, this won't benefit anyone, and he won't be paying any less when ESF parents are paying more.

"seem to think that paying tax is an entitlement to certain privileges"  <-- Isn't this what Jake was doing? So was he making perfect sense or totally wrong?

"no emotional attachment to the whole issue" <-- This is funny, I see this sentence often, and without exception from people who are against ESF receiving subvention, obviously they believe anyone who thinks ESF should be subsidized must be an ESF parent having emotional attachments

Maoku

原帖由 shadeslayer 於 13-01-24 發表
majority of HKPR (whether foreign or Chinese) in their student body so the argument of subverting "n ...

I am not saying that we should not subsidize kids studying in PIS. In my view, giving us voucher returns the power of choice to every parent.

Just declare interest, I am paying almost 10k each month for my kid studying in PIS.

Maoku

I can't understand why you guys are so hostile and envy to expatriate.  The package they have from their employers has nothing to do with whether kids are entitled to subsidized education or not.  A local rich can send their kids to subvented school. Can we say that these local rich can't do it because they are rich.

For the 雙非，their resident status are obtained through exploiting a legal loophole that makes it so unfair. From cost perspective, they would create a long term financial commitment on taxpayers while their parents in theory bear nothing, except the hospital charge for giving birth at the outset.  But comparing the benefits through the education, healthcare and social welfare, the cost they made is nothing. Also, there is no guarantee that these kids will make a contribution here by staying here forever, just as the expat kids do. So the long term benefits in terms of building our future workforce cannot be easily established. So, unless we have an immigration policy where we have control, they are more like guests not on the invitation list that coming for free lunch.

For expatriate, they come through a legitimate process. They share tax burden just as every other HK residents do during their stay, no matter whether their employers pay for them or not. So it is just a fairer deal from the utilitarian point of view.

shadeslayer

原帖由 Mom2One 於 13-01-24 發表
本帖最後由 Mom2One 於 13-1-24 10:43 編輯

The ESF subsidy has always been a contentious issue and  ...

majority of HKPR (whether foreign or Chinese) in their student body so the argument of subverting "non-PRs" does not seem to carry much weight.

Xxxxxx

Why is it ok to subsidize 30% expats?  Why don't we first subsidize all PIS who normall have 90%+ HK residents?

shadeslayer

原帖由 Maoku 於 13-01-24 發表
Cannot agree more on most of your viewpoints. As long as kids are legally admitted to HK, they shoul ...

I think it is way better to invest a huge sum of money on those 雙非 where their parents are abusing our immigration system and resources

Xxxxxx

Why do we better spend tax money on Expats who come to HK up to a few years to work, than to the double-not "children" who has the legal right to be educated in HK?

Expats normally have expats package which includes a lot of benefits including schooling. A few thousands a month subsidy per person from HK government is peanuts to the package.

Maoku

原帖由 Mom2One 於 13-01-24 發表
本帖最後由 Mom2One 於 13-1-24 10:43 編輯

The ESF subsidy has always been a contentious issue and  ...

Cannot agree more on most of your viewpoints. As long as kids are legally admitted to HK, they should be entitled to subsidized education.  Expat are legally admitted to stay and they are taxpayers too. So I see no reason why the kids should not entitle to subsidized education. I think it is way better to invest a huge sum of money on those 雙非 where their parents are abusing our immigration system and resources.

About the language issue, I wish to add that parents who willfully make falsifying claim as Cat 1 should be disqualified to ensure only those who cannot learn in mainstream Chinese school can get in.   Otherwise it will be absurd to admit a lot of local kids who can otherwise learn in the local system while expelling those who can't.

Mom2One

The ESF subsidy has always been a contentious issue and for some weird reason, emotions always run high whenever the subject comes up. I don't want to add fuel to the flames but I do have some genuine questions that I don't understand whenever ppl complain about the govt subsidy.
First, ESF does indeed seem to have a majority of HKPR (whether foreign or Chinese) in their student body so the argument of subverting "non-PRs" does not seem to carry much weight.

Second, ESF does not appear to me to be populated by only the rich or well-off families- so it is by no means an elitest school. In fact, you could argue certain elite DSS schools like St Paul's Coed etc have equally elite families (if not more) and aren't DSS schools also subvented?

I have heard some say that if ESF wants continued subvention, they should be subject to more govt controls over their curriculum- but presumably ESF is popular bc it offers a different curriculum that is obviously successful, otherwise why would it be so popular, and continue to have such good results?

Those who dislike ESF bc they say the govt is prejudiced against Cantonese speakers - well, honestly i know many Cantonese speakers who also speak native English who had no probs getting in (perhaps they lied on their form but if u have native English, ESF does not really strictly test for Chinese capability and many do lie on the form). So it's more about those with non-native English who are upset their children can't get in. But then ESF teaches in English, they don't teach English so they have to ensure you can access the curriculum.

As a flip side example, my Western friend who is keen to give her children early Chinese exposure tried applying to a few local schools and were refused on the basis of their lack of Chinese ability which would prevent them from being able to access the local curriculum. Btw, this friend has lived in HK for many years and while both she and her husband are Caucasian, they are also longtime HK permanent residents.

Btw these are all honest questions that I've had in my mind for some time. I honestly do not mean to target or snipe at those with different views but would be honestly interested to know your views.

shadeslayer

原帖由 JJsMama 於 13-01-24 發表
本帖最後由 JJsMama 於 13-1-24 10:16 編輯

Existing parents have nothing to fear, any agreed changes in the subvention will only affect new parents.

JJsMama

FattyDaddy 發表於 13-1-23 23:06
Hey, I pay tax, yet I'm not a stakeholder in MANY things in Hongkong.

Guess I'll be very busy moani ...

It is totally understandable why present ESF parents are upset over the issue of subvention.  The prospect of having to fork out more than they originally expected is rather daunting, perhaps may even throw some off course on their financial planning.   

But van der Kemp has rightly pointed out that expats should have a realistic expectation on cost of education in Hong Kong.    Private education is not cheap anywhere in the world, and it is certainly not affordable by all.     One should ascertain their long-term sustainability before committing to a foreign land.    Instead of expecting a funding from the government (i.e.  HK taxpayers), wouldn't that be more fair that the subsidy comes directly from the employer?  That as a proof of their worth over a local hire?   If that subsidy doesn't come, then tough it out like most local mortals do - go local!

As for your point on ESF being populated by mostly HK residents, then one should ask why HK taxpayers are paying children of well-to-do Hong Kong families a premier international education.  If so, shouldn't all be getting the same?

It is pure economics.  ESF offers world-class teachers, fantastic facilities, happy and creative learning environment and more than respectable school-leaving exam results, these don't happen by chance, and certainly doesn't come free.   One simply can't expect a Ferrari at the price of a Toyota.   So the question is, shouldn't the beneficiary pay?

Last of all, if your sarcasm is directed at me, then you are barking up the wrong tree.   It truly doesn't bother me one way or another what the government does.   The mention of 'taxpayer' is in answer to some posters who seem to think that paying tax is an entitlement to certain privileges.   This cannot be more wrong in HK.   Most taxpayers get pittance from the government, if anything at all.   On the point of 'non-ESF stakeholder', I am merely trying to highlight a point of view from a regular person who has no emotional attachment to the whole issue.   Raising a point of view does not equate to 'moaning', don't you agree?   Personal attack is just not cool.

shadeslayer

原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 13-01-24 發表
This discussion thread revolves around the sentiment of "no obligation to help ex-pats", right?

Man ...

The article was around helping expats who, by definition, are not HK residents.

FattyDaddy

shadeslayer 發表於 13-1-23 20:41
All arguments i heard for ESF equally apply to all other IS ...

This discussion thread revolves around the sentiment of "no obligation to help ex-pats", right?

Many international schools prioritize their admission by citizenship of their respective foreign country, while ESF and some others (ISF, CIS, Harrow etc) prioritize by language and academics or connections or even money but not by nationality, so not all international schools are the same when it comes to who they serve, and this is reflected in their student population.

If the student population of a school, ESF or otherwise, is made up of mostly HK residents, then this "no obligation to help ex-pat" argument is missing the point.

Shrimpiggy

haha moaning like plague spreading in hk

FattyDaddy

JJsMama 發表於 13-1-23 19:13
As a non-ESF stakeholder and a Hong Kong tax payer, the article makes perfect sense to me...

Hey, I pay tax, yet I'm not a stakeholder in MANY things in Hongkong.

Guess I'll be very busy moaning about anything and everything, and that makes perfect sense to some people too

Shrimpiggy

i agree that ESF has a high degree  of automony  so far..but who know what the unpopular government would ask for as the condition of the subsidies.

shadeslayer

Shrimpiggy 發表於 13-1-23 21:28
Receiving the subvention makes the government continue to intervene. Why we choose IS is to avoid th ...

How much does ESF get intervention from the HK government?  I don't know any, other than threats to take the subvention away.  Are the admission and curriculum limited in anyway by the government?  

Shrimpiggy

Receiving the subvention makes the government continue to intervene. Why we choose IS is to avoid the problematic education system here.

shadeslayer

原帖由 JJsMama 於 13-01-23 發表
本帖最後由 JJsMama 於 13-1-23 19:14 編輯

It is written by Jake van der Kamp, columnist of SCMP.

All arguments i heard for ESF equally apply to all other IS. To me it all boils down to one question.  Should we remove ESF's subsidy or should we provide same subsidy to all other IS and private schools in HK?