ESF must accept level playing field
Letters in support of the English Schools Foundation's (ESF) subvention are written characteristically without regard to relevant facts and their moral significance.
Jonathan Leung ('ESF schools contribute to international character of city', September 5) omits the fact that 35 per cent of the ESF's subsided places are occupied by selective non-residents who are not entitled to public subsidies.
Despite his predilection for 'international' character, he seems unaware that international norms censure linguistic discrimination such as that perpetrated by the ESF, and which is outlawed in all native English-speaking countries.
Richard Di Bona's complaint about the government not providing adequate educational opportunities in English, an official language, shows his disregard for Hong Kong's internationally acclaimed universal education ('ESF fills role government should play', September 2). English is the medium of instruction of many local schools. Local secondary graduates readily gain admission to native English-speaking universities overseas and satisfy their language requirements.
Local schools prepare students for public examinations which are markedly more stringent than the overseas exams taken by ESF students. That's why ESF students don't take local exams whereas local students readily take overseas exams.
The ESF's popularity is due largely to its extraordinary staff benefits and unusually student-friendly programme. Its hyped 'international' appeal is warped and vacuous. Social justice requires that the ESF, a subsidised institution, must align its staff benefits and admission practice fairly with social norms.
