Colonial administration's departure raises question over the need for the ESF

Another letter from Pierce Lam in Education Post today

James Middleton's "Talk of unfair subvention for ESF ignores the fact HK has two official languages" (Education Post, November 15) is a hodgepodge of out-of-context quotes and turgid digressions.

He referred to Fernand de Varennes' interpretation of the Belgian case. In Belgium, a bilingual country, French residents in a Dutch territory have no right to French education and likewise for Dutch in a French territory.

Varennes noted that the monolingual language territories served "purposes of public schooling" and that they were not "arbitrary". Thus, he concurred that "the right to education is confined to the right of access to educational establishments existing at a given time".

To apply the Belgian case's principle in Hong Kong, the relevant question is whether the English Schools Foundation serves Hong Kong's "purposes of public schooling".

The ESF was established not for public schooling purposes but for serving British administrators who did not want their children in public English-medium schools together with local students.

After the departure of colonial administrators, what are the grounds for the ESF's subsidised existence? The Belgian and Cyprus cases are about citizens not being provided with schooling in their native languages.

The ESF contention is not about English-speaking Hong Kong citizens not being provided with public English-medium education. It is about whether expatriates should be separately provided with an exclusive system of English-medium schools.
The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities states that minorities' right to education is "fully realised if they acquire a proper knowledge of their mother tongue during the educational process", and given this right, "minorities have a responsibility to integrate into the wider national society through the acquisition of a proper knowledge of the state language".

For the purpose of social integration, Cantonese, and not Putonghua, is the effective state language. The ESF completely neglects integration. It arbitrarily differentiates its English-medium education from that offered in local public schools.

The ESF Ordinance, interpreted in the context of the Basic Law (Article 39), requires the ESF to offer English-medium education to those who "can benefit from it" without discrimination on language grounds.

Consider the ESF's admission policy, which gives priority to "children who speak English as a first or alternative language but do not speak Cantonese and/or read and write Chinese characters". This is blatant language discrimination and is unlawful.

Expatriates vehemently defend the ESF's subvention because it affords them a privileged education that resembles, in the words of one private international schoolteacher, "an extended five-star vacation". With the ESF's migration to the International Baccalaureate programme, ESF students now evade the competition of public examinations.

There are allegations that local schools reject non-Cantonese speakers. In fact, local schools are open to expatriates. I have met non-Cantonese-speaking expatriates' children in local schools on Hong Kong Island.

The ESF's language discrimination undermines Hong Kong's public education on equality and social responsibility. In ESF schools on Hong Kong Island, where most expatriates live, there are hardly any Cantonese-speaking students.

The ESF admits Cantonese-speaking students mainly for satisfying regulatory requirements regarding enrolment numbers.

Mr Middleton talked about paying HK$25,000 a month for his children at ESF. Indigenous residents have to pay many times that amount to send their children to private international schools across district or abroad, simply because they are Cantonese-speaking.

In terms of social contribution, expatriates are the modern-day equivalent of Chinese railroad builders in 19th century North America. They have come and stayed because Hong Kong is the best, if not the only, place for the use of their talents. We don't need expatriates as 21st century colonialists with anachronistic privileges.
Hong Kong cannot depend on the presence of expatriates to distinguish itself from other Chinese cities. We must equip our native children with an international education so that they can serve China's need for international talent.

Mr Middleton is right that we have a lot to learn from Singapore, a truly multicultural country. However, in demographic profile, Hong Kong is homogenous, like Taipei. In the long run, numbers and Hong Kong's China connection will prevail. To prepare for the challenges ahead, we must start with education.

PIERCE LAM, Central

Comment: He really doesn't like the ESF, doesn't he? I wonder if he feels the same way about the (Royal) Hong Kong Jockey Club or the many other Hong Kong institutions that were set up before 1 July 1997?

There were a series of letters earlier this year claiming that the ESF discriminates against Cantonese speakers, and Heather du Quesnay eventually wrote in to explain the true position. I have a simple challenge for Mr Lam - compare the percentage of children in ESF schools who have one or more parents who are Hong Kong Chinese with the percentage of children in local schools who have one parent who is non-Chinese. Then tell us what conclusion you should draw from this.

Here's a clue: local parents choose ESF schools because they feel their children will get a better education; most expats have no other choice.

Talk of unfair subvention for ESF ignores the fact HK has two official languages

[from Education Post Mailbag - 15 November 2008]

Recently we saw yet another letter from Pierce Lam slamming the ESF's government subvention ("We need school system that is fair for all", South China Morning Post, November 7).

It appears Mr Lam has a serious chip on his shoulder about the ESF and colonialism in general. In a letter to Time magazine, he wrote: "A city can never be great if the majority of its population is taught that everything good is foreign. The cosmopolitan city glamorised in your report is a city of cultural orphans brainwashed into becoming submissive to myriad foreign cultures that have been filtered through a colonial sieve."

As a parent with three children at ESF schools it costs me HK$25,000 a month to educate my children. That sum will increase when the other two move to college from junior school. All my children were born in Hong Kong.

Mr Lam insinuates "ESF's admission policy explicitly discriminates against Cantonese speakers. Cantonese speakers have only a token presence in ESF schools". Hogwash. I suggest he stands outside Sha Tin Junior School and college when the schools close for the day and plays "spot the gweilo" among the sea of Asian student faces, most of whom speak Cantonese at home.

The ESF is a foundation based on statute. Its objectives are to own, manage, administer and operate schools offering, without regard to race or religion, a modern liberal education through the medium of the English language to boys and girls who are able to benefit from such an education. The medium of instruction is specifically enshrined within the laws of Hong Kong.

He refers to a judgment 40 years ago: "In a Belgian linguistics case (1968), a European court held that `the right to education does not mean the right to be provided education in a language of the parent's choice and the right to education is confined to the right of access to educational establishments existing at a given time'."

What he deliberately omits is the fact that Hong Kong has two official languages, English and Chinese, and that they are spoken throughout Hong Kong and the local business world. In Belgium, whose official languages are Dutch and French, there were in 1968 specific unilingual areas where people spoke either French or Dutch, but not both. Legco studied this judgment and it can be found at www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/english/bc/bc52/papers/bc520228cb2-1152-2-e.pdf

Moreover, here is a link to The Right to Education and Minority Language by Fernand de Varennes. He discusses the Belgian and Cyprus cases in a modern day interpretation of the 40-year-old judgment: www.eumap.org/journal/features/2004/minority_education/edminlang

This learned lecturer opined: "Until recently, particularly in Europe, there has been the widespread - and mistaken - belief that there is absolutely no right to education in a minority language under traditional human rights treaties ... Many have referred to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Belgian Linguistic Case [6] as concluding that the state has the absolute and unqualified right to determine the official language of instruction in public schools and denied that a right to education in a particular language existed under Article 2 of Protocol (the right to education), even in combination with the prohibition of discrimination (article 14).

"This interpretation is, in fact, an incorrect reading of the decision, since what the European Court actually said was that, given the social and political context at the time in Belgium, the overall linguistic regime, which mainly included monolingual Dutch (and French) language territories for purposes of public schooling, was not arbitrary and therefore was not discriminatory."

Mr Lam states: "The World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report 2005/06 shows that Hong Kong is 28th - below Taiwan (fifth), Singapore (sixth) and South Korea (17th) - partly because of government inadequacy in handling matters impartially ... Subvented ESF schools offer new immigrants who are native-English-speakers unquestioned admission at the expense of native students. Withdrawal of the ESF's subvention will improve Hong Kong's competitiveness by making it a fairer place. In Singapore all children are taught in English in primary school and at the next levels with their mother-tongue teaching in Chinese, Malay or Tamil ranked second." I suggest he does a Wikipedia search on education in Singapore.

"Immigrants", as he calls us, can only come here if they have a talent not locally available and beneficial to Hong Kong society. He also omits the rights of locally born children.
Hong Kong-born children of permanent and tax-paying residents of any ethnic race should be entitled to education in either of the two official languages here with the same subventions as provided to DSS schools.

The ESF provides a valuable and necessary service in this "Asia World City".

JAMES MIDDLETON, Yuen Long

We need school system that is fair for all

[SCMP Letters page November 7th]

ESF review highlights need for new direction" (Editorial, October 25), misleadingly alleges that the ESF subvention makes ESF schools "affordable to many Chinese middle-class families". Hong Kong's middle-class Chinese families are predominantly Cantonese-speaking but the ESF's admission policy explicitly discriminates against Cantonese speakers.

Without equal right of admission, Cantonese speakers have only a token presence in ESF schools. The proposed withdrawal of funding will help eliminate language-based privileges without compromising a child's "right to a subsidised education". In a Belgian linguistics case (1968), a European court held that "the right to education does not mean the right to be provided education in a language of the parent's choice and the right to education is confined to the right of access to educational establishments existing at a given time".

Hong Kong's public education, which includes English- and Chinese-medium schools, is open to all applicants. There is neither legal nor moral obligation for Hong Kong to subsidise a separate English-medium schools system especially for non-Cantonese speaking students.
The funding perpetuates shameful privileges which induce cultural divisiveness rather than diversity. It enables ESF teachers to enjoy higher pay and ESF students, better facilities than their counterparts in non-ESF schools. As all ESF schools have shifted to the International Baccalaureate programme, the funding promotes an exclusive qualification (IB diploma), which students in local schools have no access to through public exams.

The World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report 2005-06 shows that Hong Kong is 28th - below Taiwan (fifth), Singapore (sixth) and South Korea (17th), partly because of "government inadequacy in handling matters impartially".

These Asian countries are competitive without offering privileged education to non-residents. Subvented ESF schools offer new immigrants who are native English-speakers unquestioned admission at the expense of native students. Withdrawal of the ESF's subvention will improve Hong Kong`s competitiveness by making it a fairer place.

To become socially relevant in the post-colonial era, the ESF must take effective measures to implement a fair and open admission policy even if it is allowed to turn its schools private and operate without subvention.

Pierce Lam, Central