The global financial crisis and rising unemployment have pressured the Hong Kong government to increase funding for training programmes. In general, Hong Kong people have no objection to them; they tend to enjoy support in public opinion surveys.
This paves the way for the endorsement of the training programmes by pro-government and pro-democracy political parties. Many of them apply for government funds to offer their own programmes as services to the community.
Under such circumstances, there are very few vigorous assessments to examine the actual contributions these programmes make. The Hong Kong economy is quite developed already, and the demand for unskilled labour is small: the appallingly low hourly wages offered by fast-food chains is a good indicator.
The cultivation of professionals and skilled labour is not the objective of short-term training programmes. This is the task of formal educational institutions. A quick survey of various short-term training programmes funded by the government does not offer much credible evidence that they significantly improve trainees' job prospects. In fact, if a clearly defined demand exists in the labour market, employers will often take the initiative to provide short-term training themselves, or in co-operation with vocational training agencies.
For example, the hotel industry needs female workers to clean rooms, and it naturally welcomes public-sector organisations offering suitable training. But, even if the training is not available from the public sector, hotels will not find it difficult to offer their own courses. Normally, such training lasts only two to three weeks.
The challenge, however, lies in the demand for these women to acquire a Form 3 English standard. This is probably beyond the reach of short-term training programmes. If trainees in these short-term programmes find jobs with relatively good wages during the training period, they will probably quit the programmes and grab the jobs. This is one way to assess the value of these programmes.