Hong Kong should not pay ESF to maintain its luxurious schools

The government should stop subsidising the English Schools Foundation (ESF) as its admission policy picks out Cantonese-speaking children for discrimination and favours non-Cantonese-speakers. An anachronistic remnant from the bygone colonial era, this institution promotes segregation by practising divisive linguistic discrimination as it enjoys public funding. There is nothing like it anywhere in the world.

Legally, the ESF is required to offer a liberal education in the English language without discrimination 'to boys and girls who are able to benefit from such an education' (Chapter 1117 Sec 4). However, about 30 per cent of its subsidised places go to non-residents while thousands of local children are denied admission simply because they speak Cantonese. Indigenous children who opt for 'international' education have to apply to expensive private international schools or go abroad.

As publicly subsidised institutions, ESF schools undermine the city's moral fabric as they offer to selective minorities an 'international' curriculum with virtually no local content. The ESF's lingering presence in post-colonial Hong Kong is predicated on social indifference as its discriminatory practice is largely overlooked by the indigenous community due to entrenched segregation. The public at large would certainly become riotous when it becomes better informed.

Hong Kong should not pay ESF to maintain its luxurious schools as an unwarranted privilege of non-residents while competition intensifies among local students due to reduced resources for local education. Its undeserved 'reputation' is based on an irrational disregard for the social and financial costs incurred by that outlandish institution. Hong Kong would benefit if the ESF's subvention was diverted to needy ethnic minorities to help them integrate with society.

For historical reasons, ESF schools receive a subsidy on a per class basis. The student population of ESF schools tended to taper off in upper forms as expatriates used to send their older children home to boarding schools for university entrance preparation. Subsidy on a per class basis has enabled the ESF to offer small-sized classes and various interesting courses which local schools can't afford. The ESF can't expect its outdated subvention to be updated for its anachronistic privileges. Public subvention should be available only to schools which accord equal opportunity to all without discrimination on a linguistic pretext.

Cynthia Sze, Quarry Bay