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.