The Court of First Instance has, sensibly, ruled against the Catholic Church's contention that a government initiative to enhance the governance of aided schools is unlawful. While the church's initial response yesterday was mild, it has not ruled out launching an appeal. Looking back, perhaps officials underestimated the sensitivity of the church towards school-based management reform. But it is difficult to see how they could have done more to pacify opponents.
Under the reform, all publicly funded schools are required to set up a statutory board, 40 per cent of whose members must be elected representatives of parents, teachers and alumni. This moderate measure to enhance democracy was aimed at enhancing the accountability of schools' management. It is hardly revolutionary, as the sponsoring body still retains majority control of the school board and there are provisions preventing the board changing the school's mission.
The reform is aimed at raising the transparency of schools' management as they are given greater discretion to manage public funds. That it has emerged as a concern in post-colonial Hong Kong has to do with latent fears that the government, now under the aegis of a communist sovereign, might be moving to suppress the churches' propagation of their faiths.
A peculiar feature of Hong Kong's public school system is that the government runs only a small number of schools directly and relies on non-governmental organisations to operate most. As a former British colony, this city has a preponderance of religious organisations running schools. The Catholic Church and its congregations are among the biggest school sponsoring bodies, running 221 aided primary and secondary schools out of a total of 935.
Under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the Catholic Church saw the reform as a government conspiracy to undermine the church's total control of its schools. A vocal champion of a fully democratic political system, Cardinal Zen enlisted the support of the pro-democracy camp of legislators to oppose the legislation. Having failed to stop its passage, the church launched a judicial review that led to yesterday's judgment.
Among other things, the church argued that the school-based management reform ran contrary to the Basic Law, as it constituted a major change to the 'previous educational system' in place before 1997 and was a dilution of the church's autonomy in running its schools. Mr Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-ning has, rightly, rejected these arguments.
