Your March 8 editorial, 'Language double talk', accused the Government of failing to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to improving English standards, citing funds for native English-speaking teachers as an example. I'm somewhat surprised at this view.
First, I don't think anyone should doubt the Government's commitment to improving language standards and the importance we have attached to the Education Commission Final Report No 6 (ECR 6).
One should not overlook the fact that we have moved swiftly to demonstrate this commitment by securing the necessary resources to fund the Phase I recommendations put forward in the report, including funding to employ 100 native English-speaking teachers in the coming academic year.
Our proposal to employ this number takes into account the recruitment practicalities which need to be resolved in the short time between now and the beginning of the next school year (September).
Although the draft ECR 6 report, issued for public consultation last December, had envisaged a larger number of teachers under this programme, I should point out that the resources which have been provided by the Government accords fully with the phased implementation programme recommended in the Education Commission's final report.
Recognising the importance of enhancing language proficiency among students, Financial Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen did in fact make additional provisions in his budget speech to top up, rather than scale down, the provisions in the education programme.
Such resources will enable an early start in implementing Phase I of the ECR 6 recommendations in 1996-97 - including the native English-speaking teachers' scheme.