I wish to take issue with your editorial of January 13 headlined 'A costly cut', which argued that the SAR government should continue to subsidise the English Schools Foundation (ESF) on the ground that other international schools are receiving support from their home countries.
I would like to know, specifically, which international schools are receiving these subsidies and which 'home countries' are giving these grants to students?
The ESF should have known that the government would eventually review the subsidy and should have already been considering creative financial options, such as issuing corporate debentures, in addition to raising tuition fees. Some of the ESF schools have long been considered 'elite' and populated largely by students from high-income families, or expatriates with special status. Surely, these families can and must share the ESF's financial burden?
Given the current economic problems in Hong Kong, there should be no more sacred cows and Secretary for Education and Manpower Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is simply doing a long-overdue public service by calling a spade a spade.
I would like to point out that the University of California used to be free for in-state residents until then governor Ronald Reagan, despite strong opposition, imposed tuition fees. In spite of this, the University of California remains a world-class institution.
The Hong Kong government must act boldly in order to reduce the deficit and and doing away with subsidies to ESF schools would be one of the least painful initiatives to be implemented.