Would the government please explain why it is apparently hounding the English Schools Foundation?
If the government wants Hong Kong to be 'Asia's World City', it will have to offer Asia's world language, which is English.
Hong Kong has offered that for some time and the ESF system is the major provider of English language education in Hong Kong. Jeopardise this and international people will not be able to come here and work, or stay and work. Nor will local people have the choice, which they have now, to opt for such an education, which is affordable for a wide band of people. Also wasted will be the expenditure on promoting the 'Asia's World City' programme, not to mention the ESF's contribution to the Hong Kong economy and the overall relief it provides to the government's education budget.
Generally, the ESF system seems to me to be relatively efficient, appropriate in terms of the government's stated policies and affordable. No organisation is perfect and no doubt the ESF could put the government's subsidy to better use.
But if efficiency and expenditure are the real issues, should one not look at the following: civil servant's pay, which when considered in its entirety (subsidies, pensions and other perks) is way above that for comparable jobs in the private sector; and subsidies of all sorts for the property market?
Taken together, I think these two policies are the budget deficit. To cover them, we are now being asked to consider all sorts of new taxes, which Hong Kong has never borne before and which are contrary to its spirit and are certain to damage its appeal internationally, not to mention having a detrimental effect on its own people.
In fact, I understand that the ESF subsidy is about one-third of that paid by the government for overseas education bills (comparatively no positive effect for the community) for the children of top civil servants who are now overwhelmingly locally born Hong Kong people. The rest of the population of Hong Kong has to make do with what it can afford. If reforms are to be made, is this expenditure efficient, appropriate or affordable? The answer is obviously 'no'.
