• Fri
  • Dec 19, 2014
  • Updated: 3:26am

English Schools Foundation

The English Schools Foundation (ESF) operates five secondary schools, nine primary schools and a school for students with special educational needs across Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories. It is the largest international educational foundation in Asia. 


Letters to the Editor, February 19, 2013

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 19 February, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 19 February, 2013, 5:26am

ESF admission policy smacks of segregation

The English Schools Foundation's intended change of its admission system is procedural and not substantive. ("ESF to end admission priority for non-Chinese speakers", February 5).

Its current admission system is designed to favour "children who do not speak Cantonese and/or read and write Chinese characters".

However, in practice, it has failed the policy objective of giving priority to non-Chinese-speakers. In the words of ESF chief executive Heather Du Quesnay: "It's pretty difficult to test if the child cannot speak Cantonese. We have never been able to do it. That's one of the reasons the system didn't work very well."

In order to better achieve the foundation's objective of running its schools primarily for non-Chinese-speakers, the ESF will test the children's English proficiency in stringent interviews and verify "the parents' commitment to an ESF-style English-medium education through a parental statement and interview".

Instead of bracketing Chinese-speaking applicants as auxiliary candidates to fill places not taken by non-Chinese students, ESF aims to ensure segregation more effectively by adopting a personalised approach based on subjective appraisal of applicants and their parents.

It is Ms Du Quesnay's belief that the new admission process would not reduce the number of non-Chinese students at ESF schools. In fact, it may even reduce ESF schools' Chinese enrolment.

In education, diversity means an equal opportunity to take part in different education experiences. It differs from segregation, which restricts students' education experiences according to their socio-racial backgrounds.

The ESF's intended change is not meant to rectify its divisive education policy, but to strengthen its function as a bastion of colonialism that promotes segregation and perpetrates unwarranted privileges for non-Chinese and non-residents based on perverse discrimination.

The HKSAR government must withdraw from the colonial practice of offering two segregated systems of subsidised English-medium education - one for Chinese and the other for non-Chinese.

For sustainable long-term development, we must respect our local schools and demand that expatriates who wish to partake in our city's opportunities respect the system where our own children receive their education.

In Japan, if expatriates want public education, they have to send their children to local schools. It's time expatriates in Hong Kong learned to respect our local schools which, both in language standards and in the various academic measures, are generally considered superior to schools in Japan and in most of our expatriates' home countries.

Pierce Lam, Central


Western ideas tip the scales for China

Lau Nai-keung ("New year, new world view, without the Western bias", February 15) ends his piece by saying that the snake will bring us luck.

With views such as his held by [National People's Congress] members, Hong Kong is going to need it.

His premise is that Western democracy is no good if you're hungry. There is certainly a link between hunger and governance.

I'd suggest that if people in China had the mechanism to peacefully change their rulers during the Great Leap Forward, when millions died due to mass starvation, they would have done just that.

Lau's confidence is surely based on the "three decades of unprecedented growth for China" which can almost wholly be attributed to the reintroduction of capitalism to China - something that would have been roundly condemned by members of the NPC just a few years before.

Sounds like ideas honed by the West aren't so bad after all.

Chris White, Sai Ying Pun


Street adverts making a mess of Mong Kok

It was my understanding that the pull-up advertising screens which plague Sai Yeung Choi Street South and now Nelson Street in Mong Kok had been made illegal. Am I mistaken?

Pedestrians now have the absurd and annoying inconvenience of being forced into narrow channels by the advertisers, in what is one of the most congested areas in Hong Kong. Money seems to trump people in this city.

One recent evening, I saw that one advertiser had blocked off at least half of the already narrow Sai Yeung Choi street, near Argyle Street.

If they aren't illegal, they should be, as they block or restrict public thoroughfares. If they are in fact illegal, who is supposed to be enforcing their removal?

Jeff Mein Smith, Mong Kok


Nationalise tunnel to ease traffic gridlock

I would like to respond to Albert Cheng's column on the problems of our mass transport system and his suggestion on how to tackle it ("Let government run Hong Kong's transport system", February 15).

Traffic is indeed a big problem. Central, Wan Chai and Hung Hom are often congested, and I think the congestion around the Cross-Harbour Tunnel is the main culprit.

Activists say the government is wholly responsible for the mess, but giving it full control of mass transport without giving room for [private] operators is too radical. Nevertheless, the government plays a big role. Transport secretary Anthony Cheung Bing-leung insists the government is on the right track to shift traffic from the Cross-Harbour Tunnel to the Eastern Harbour Tunnel [by reducing the toll in the latter].

He stands firm on not adjusting tolls at the Western Harbour Tunnel - the only one with traffic three times below its expected capacity.

New transport infrastructure has done nothing to relieve traffic congestion. It is reforms that are desperately needed.

There are a few options available to the government. The first suggestion is constructing the Central-Wan Chai Bypass and improving the Kwun Tong Bypass. But the gamble may be more of a loss, as the project will cause a lot of pollution.

Some protesters suggest diverting cars from the two saturated tunnels to the convenient, but pricey western tunnel. I believe this is the most appropriate solution.

I agree with Cheng that the government should nationalise the Western Harbour Tunnel to dramatically reduce toll fees and allow more people to use it.

Look at the MTR, which has kept fares affordable for all citizens. Why can't the government do the same in the highway system?

Jackie Lo, Tsuen Wan


Why the long wait for traffic solutions?

I refer to the report ("Options to cut jams at tunnel revealed", February 9).

I am hopeful that all the talk about tackling our air and roadside pollution problems are more than just talk, because we have heard all this before.

But it does seem that the Environmental Protection Department and government are more serious this time.

Still, I am concerned about a statement made by Transport and Housing minister Anthony Cheung Bing-leung that the measures could be in place by the second half of next year. Why such a long time?

After the three-month consultation is completed, why do we need to wait another year before implementing the measures?

Also, truck drivers oppose any increases [to tolls at certain tunnels]. I assume others will, too. So if they protest, will the government - as usual - back down? I hope not. I hope this government will finally show some courage and backbone, unlike prior administrations.

I am looking forward to a response from the relevant authorities.

Terry Scott, Sha Tin


Dog abuser deserves long jail sentence

It is absolutely disgusting for a magistrate to give Mok Chung-ting a mere eight months in jail for savagely setting his dog on fire ("Man jailed eight months for setting pet dog on fire", February 15). Mok should be jailed for at least a year for such extreme cruelty to one of God's creatures.

This case reminds me of the Kowloon couple who were found, last December, to have tied their dogs' mouths with the plastic strips that police use to handcuff criminals.

People who don't want to hear barking have no right to keep pet dogs, it's that simple.

Beatriz Taylor, Cheung Chau


No sympathy for noisy dogs in village

The magistrate who sent a man to jail for eight months because he set fire to a dog admonished the defendant for cruelty to "man's best friend".

Obviously, the magistrate has never been kept awake night after night by incessant barking and the refusal of the owner to do anything about it. Man's best friend quickly becomes man's worst nightmare.

As a victim of a neighbour's dog that barks throughout the night, I fully sympathise with the man who set fire to the noisy mutt. If my neighbour's dog were to spontaneously combust, there would be no tears shed in our village.

Greg Knowler, Sai Kung


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Mr. Lam makes a very good point in arguing for the desegregation of schools in Hong Kong. It is not only our elite schools that offer EMI education, there are also some Band 3 schools who are either EMI or offer EMI streams.
There really wasn't ever in the history of Hong Kong a need to set-up the ESF because of a lack of resources available for non-Chinese speakers. The whole premise on which the ESF was founded was false. In reality it was founded to separate the children of foreigners from local Chinese children. Since the handover the ESF has now moved away from this model towards trying to portray itself to different audiences in different ways. To the local population and the Gov't it tries to sell itself as being a leader in EMI schooling. To the foreign community it tries to sell itself as an International School.
The subsidies should end. The needs of students should not be ignored, but I am sure that only a small minority of students will be affected should the ESF close altogether. The ESF does not help ordinary non-Chinese speaking minorities, such as those who are ethnically Pakistani or Nepali. These people, unfortunately do not generally have the financial resources to attend the ESF.
Please note; I currently teach in a CMI Band 3 school that offers an EMI stream. Previously I taught for 12 years in an EMI school and prior to that I taught in a low cost 'International College' where the majority of students were from Pakistan or Nepal.
after Greenspan, your pretentious self importance is laughable
Serious minded discussion can't avoid reference to
EU's decision on the Belgian case
and UN convention on minority rights
Resident native English speaking children have no right to special treatment
They should attend the local school in their neighborhood
Minorities have the obligation to learn the language of their host country
For HK's sustainable development, there is no place for fools
who mistake dying colonial privileges as HK's uniqueness
I agree with honkiepanky’s observation that “the purported benefits of having so many foreign companies here are somewhat overrated”. The right kind of expatriates for HK is that who won't compete unfairly for our public resources.
See how well expatriates behave in Japan and continental Europe? If they want subsidized education, they send their children to local schools, learn in the local language and follow local syllabus. No expatriate there dares to ask for subsidized preferential education in English.
HK students in local Chinese or English medium schools have no problem to continue tertiary education abroad. Why are HK's expatriates afraid of local schools?
It corrupts our society’s moral fiber if we don’t correct the misunderstanding of some expatriates who, as beneficiaries of HK’s generosity, act ungratefully as if they were the benefactors.
End of discussion today
The suggestion that ESF schools are full of expatriate children, here for a short visit, sponging off the Hong Kong taxpayer is ludicrous. As I stated earlier, 44% of the students are ethnically Chinese, 21% are Caucasian. Furthermore, 70% of students at ESF schools are permanent residents.
Hong Kong has a unique and complex history. There is a tradition of English in this city, one which most people see as worth preserving for the sake of international competitiveness. It is not unreasonable for English speaking, tax-paying, permanent residents of this city to expect some government contribution towards educating their children in English. Whether the ESF subvention is the best way to achieve that goal may be debated. But that would be a debate for serious minded people, who want the best for all of Hong Kong's people. So I don't see you being part of that debate, as your idea of a "discussion" seems to be hurling racial abuse.
If you're really worried about the "moral fiber "(sic) of this city, then I suggest you stop peddling prejudice and look at the facts before sounding off.
Serious minded?
Read your own first paragraph
Why must you evade my repeated comment on your second sentence?
Why don't you compare the first and the last sentences
and account, as I've repeatedly commented, to
the conspicuous 30%?
Is it mental deficiency or prejudice?
That could also be the cause of the "hurling racial abuse" you imagine
Describing colonialism isn't racist,
colonial mentality and practice is racist
The comments of presumably expatriates show deterioration of the already inferior quality of post-colonial filths and the likes.
honkiepanky: who is saying that being “regional hubs for foreign multinationals and their expatriate staff” means subisdized preferential education for foreign nationals? Find us in reality “a regional hub” that fits your dream.
rsallen: You emphasize facts but have evaded the real, present, and salient facts I’ve raised, clinging blindly to your own falsities.
How would you reconcile the statistical discrepancy between 21%/44% of ESF and 2%/94% of reality?
Why “almost half the students in these schools be Chinese”? – because ESF needs them to fill vacancies, especially in the upper forms, in order to beg public funding.
ESF may wish to show us comparative application / admission rates of the races; and students mix in different grades and districts.
Why single out Cantonese-speaking applicants?
How would you account for ESF’s 35% non-Caucasian, non-Chinese students against their 4% demography (FDHs included)?
You have also evaded all the compelling facts in Pierce Lam’s letter
stonecrest, you’ve shown us your moral foundation, pegging your respect on the few officials who use remnant colonial perk to send their children to schools abroad, children who could have been in ESF schools if not excluded for being Cantonese-speaking; you're a smarty fixating on a rotten tree and oblivious of the healthy forest
Someone is a little oversensitive.
I have no dog in this fight (no kids) and as far as I'm concerned all the expatriates can all go home and leave better housing for me. Personally I think the purported benefits of having so many foreign companies here are somewhat overrated.
But if the government is going to put effort into attracting foreign companies' offices here it had might as well do it right. Which means providing access to English language education. Expecting expatriates to send their kids to Cantonese school is not realistic. Private international schools are fine but 1) there are not enough spaces, and 2) what's the problem with subsidizing English language education? Isn't all public education subsidized?
HK's foreign investment policy is like its tourism policy, which seems to consist of attracting tourists but not bothering to build infrastructure needed to service the demand, the end result being spiraling rents and little meaningful new economic activity.
Maybe the expatriates would respect the local schools more if the Civil Servants were not given allowances to take their children out of the local school system and send them abroad for their education.
Would IRDHK who mentions “a weird view of education” let us know where else in the world could we find the ESF kind of language discrimination in subsidized education.
IRDHK and the like should also petition against Obama’s requirement that immigrants in the US must learn English.
Would any EU countries in continental Europe offer subsidized English-medium education preferentially for foreign nationals in their own countries?
Now who is being funny and weird?
The U.S. and Europe do not have pretensions to be regional hubs for foreign multinationals and their expatriate staff. Perhaps HK should not either -- but we can't have it both ways.



SCMP.com Account