All varieties actually represent a range from educated and formal through to colloquial and informal. One of the major functions of all colloquial and vernacular local varieties is to indicate the speaker's in-group identity, and this often requires these varieties to be unintelligible to people outside the group (consider the Geordie variety of Newcastle, the Doric variety of Aberdeen, or the teenage argot of children, for example). We are talking about the more formal varieties, and it is whether these formal varieties are internationally intelligible or not that is the important question.

Our research and that of others show that many of these formal 'multilingual varieties' are indeed internationally intelligible. Does Mr Regan really find it difficult to understand the English of Asian multilinguals such as Lee Hsien Loong, Gloria Arroyo, Abdullah Badawi and Margaret Chan? Does he really find the monolingual native speaker George Bush easier to understand?

Mr Johncock also says my argument is misleading by claiming that I was arguing that the fluency of multilingual speakers such as Badawi, Lee and Arroyo was evidence that, in his words, 'the NET scheme was unnecessary or counterproductive'. Actually I was using this as evidence that the English of multilingual speakers who have learned English as a second language can be at least as intelligible as the English of monolingual native speakers, even those who have studied at Yale. Mr Johncock would appear to agree with this point.

Maureen Bushell ('Logic of language argument fails scrutiny test', July 7), questions my logic, but then says the multilingual model is indeed what students aspire to, but that they need NET teachers to achieve it. Stephen Cooley ('Focus of NETs is to help get it right', July 7), states that many NET teachers are highly qualified and accomplished. I agree entirely.

Unfortunately, however, many schools in Hong Kong and throughout the region employ unqualified teachers solely on the grounds that they are native speakers, something that Jim Bullen of Sydney, Australia, appears to find perfectly acceptable ('Hong Kong parents want genuine article', June 30). His position is that, because parents think that only native speakers can have complete facility in their native language and that this is reflected 'in the colour of the teacher's skin and other white-caucasian elements', this justifies him accepting this racist prejudice. Neither a person's first language nor the colour of their skin has anything at all to do with their competence as a language teacher. A multilingual model would help put an end to these racist hiring practices.

Victor Christianopoulos ('Kirkpatrick's agenda clashes with real needs of language learning', June 30), gratuitously insults the Institute of Education and the quality of its graduates. He presents no evidence. How could he, as all the evidence from recent independent surveys indicates that school principals are extremely happy with the quality of our graduates and rank them at least as highly as graduates from other teacher education providers? Mr Christianopoulos should also note that, far from 'struggling to find employment', more than 99 per cent of our graduates find employment in their chosen field. He should apologise to the institute and its students.

To learn more about new and multilingual varieties of English, refer to my book World Englishes: Implications of International Communication and English Language Teaching, published this year by Cambridge University Press.

ANDY KIRKPATRICK,

Head of English,

Hong Kong Institute of Education

Some are more equal than others

The Guardian recently reported a London School of Economics scholar's finding that international students at British universities were paying 'vastly inflated' tuition fees, up to seven times the sum paid by British and EU residents. The scholar also said British taxpayers' subsidy for British and EU residents, averaging about GBP3,500 (HK$55,125) per student, could not account for the difference which, in Oxford's example, was between GBP3,070 and GBP17,215. These figures show that far from being beneficiaries of Britain's subsidised education, international students are subsidising British universities.

The British Council claimed that the LSE scholar's conclusions were 'spurious' ('British Council slams claim of huge fees gap', Education Post, June 23). Katherine Forestier, the council's education director, stated that 'British taxes go to paying for education'. Without any supporting data, she said: 'It's as if the writer expects international students to pay exactly the same as home students.' Ms Forestier should know that in Hong Kong, international students not only pay the same as home students, they also enjoy privileges denied to home students.

The English Schools Foundation, which operates the only subsidised international schools in Hong Kong, gives priority first to native English speakers and then to students whose mother tongues are anything but Cantonese. Thus, children of expatriates who work in Shenzhen and pay no tax in Hong Kong can be admitted to ESF's subsidised schools, whereas indigenous children, who have no problem gaining admission to expensive private international schools and whose families have been living in the neighbourhood of ESF schools for generations, are excluded, given the scarcity of places.

I believe Cantonese-speaking families who want international education for their children have the constitutional right to equal admission to subsidised international schools.

In Singapore, public schools are desegregated. There is no justification for Asia's World City to perpetrate segregation, with two subsidised English school systems, one for the indigenous and another for the so-called 'international' students. It is immoral to keep Hong Kong students in the perpetually disadvantaged position of being excluded from subsidised international schools at home and having to subsidise native students while abroad.

PIERCE LAM,

Central