1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 26 October 1988 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 26 October 1988 1
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 26 October 1988
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
HIS HONOUR THE DEPUTY TO THE GOVERNOR(PRESIDENT) THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF SECRETARY
SIR DAVID ROBERT FORD, K.B.E., L.V.O., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
MR. PIERS JACOBS, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
MR. JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN CHEONG KAM-CHUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG YAN-LUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, C.B.E., J.P. DR. THE HONOURABLE HENRIETTA IP MAN-HING, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YING-LUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. RITA FAN HSU LAI-TAI, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PETER POON WING-CHEUNG, M.B.E., J.P. .
THE HONOURABLE CHENG HON-KWAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG PUI-LAM
THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, M.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE POON CHI-FAI
PROF. THE HONOURABLE POON CHUNG-KWONG
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAI CHIN-WAH
THE HONOURABLE MRS. ROSANNA TAM WONG YICK-MING THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
DR. THE HONOURABLE DANIEL TSE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, M.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE GRAHAM BARNES, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR LANDS AND WORKS
THE HONOURABLE RONALD GEORGE BLACKER BRIDGE, O.B.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE GEOFFREY THOMAS BARNES, J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE PETER TSAO KWANG-YUNG, C.P.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND INFORMATION
THE HONOURABLE CHAU TAK-HAY, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E. THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL CHENG TAK-KIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHEUNG CHI-KONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD CHOW MEI-TAK
THE HONOURABLE MRS. NELLIE FONG WONG KUT-MAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS. PEGGY LAM, M.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE DANIEL LAM WAI-KEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE
THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, J.P.
DR. THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG WAI-TUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURALBE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KINGSLEY SIT HO-YIN
THE HONOURABLE MRS. SO CHAU YIM-PING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION (ACTING)
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P.
IN ATTENDANCE
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR. LAW KAM-SANG
Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2):
Subject L.N. No.
Subsidiary Legislation:
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance
Public Health and Municipal Services
(Public Pleasure Grounds)
(Amendment of Fourth Schedule)(No.6)
Order 1988......................................................... 277/88
Immigration Ordinance
Immigration (Vietnamese Refugee Centres)
(Closed Centre)(Amendment)
(No.5) Rules 1988............................................... 278/88
Oral answers to questions
Foreign workers
1. MR. TIEN asked: Will Government inform this Council whether, without changing existing policy, limited numbers of foreign workers could be imported on a short-term contractual basis to work for selected industries in Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, this is possible under the existing policy which stipulates that foreign workers may be admitted to Hong Kong provided:
(a) that there is no security objection and they have no known records of serious crime;
(b) that there is no likelihood of them becoming a burden on Hong Kong;
(c) that they possess a special skill, knowledge or experience of value to, and not readily available in Hong Kong; or
(d) that they are in a position to make a substantial contribution to the economy of Hong Kong.
Workers admitted under the existing policy are landed for six months initially. Their stay is subject to review periodically, and extensions will be granted if the circumstances prevailing at the time of the original approval still prevail. For workers admitted for specific contracts, extensions will be granted until expiry of their contracts.
Each case has to be assessed on its individual merits against the situation in the local labour market prevailing at the time of application. I am therefore unable to give more than this qualified affirmative answer. Nevertheless, many persons do in fact enter Hong Kong for employment under the existing policy. In 1987, some 4 800 middle management, professional and technical staff were admitted into Hong Kong, and another 2 800 were admitted in the first seven months of this year. They came from a wide range of countries including Japan, the United States, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Singapore, the Philippines and Switzerland.
In addition, although there is no general provision for workers from China to enter Hong Kong for employment purposes, more than 27 000 permanent residents of China enter Hong Kong each year legally through the one-way exit permit scheme. Inevitably many of these people join the local labour market.
MR. McGREGOR: Will the Government concede that there has been for some years an increasing shortage of labour in the construction industry and that there is every sign that the shortage is likely to continue? The shortage is already delaying the completion of many major projects and increasing their costs. In the circumstances, will the Government also concede that there is a case for further detailed consideration of the proposal to permit contract labour to be brought into Hong Kong for at least this industry?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: On the first concession, I am afraid it falls rather outside my area of policy responsibility and I would perhaps ask the Secretary for Education
and Manpower if he wishes to say anything on this subject at the moment. As to the second point, any change in policy or the manner in which it will be applied would be a matter for further consideration by the Executive Council, and the Administration, as the Governor said in his Legislative Council annual address, is now reviewing the use of that policy.
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Secretary for Education and Manpower, would you care to add?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I do not think I can add anything which is not well known. The subject has been discussed exhaustively and there are strong views and arguments on both sides. But the conclusion that we reached following a recent review was that the disadvantages of taking more drastic action outweighed the advantages. As explained in the Governor's speech on the opening of the Session and, for that reason, we prefer the solution of trying to make more use of the existing policy.
MR. TIEN: Sir, given the serious labour shortage problem presently faced by industries like garment manufacturing which, due to quota restrictions and country of origin rule, are unable to ship their production lines to China. Will Government consider relaxing criterion 3, as expressed by Secretary for Security, to allow importation of workers, not management staff, from China?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, applications on individual proposals to import labour will be considered by the Director of Immigration on their merits under existing policy. Other than that, the reply to the previous supplementary question which I gave, also applies in this case.
MR. TAM (in Cantonese): The Secretary for Security in his reply said that four conditions will have to be complied with in the application for labour importation and that each case will be considered on its individual merits. Will Government inform this Council what objective criterion is being used by the Administration to assess labour importation to ensure that labour imported meets all the four conditions to avoid wrong decision being made by Government as was the case with Korean workers?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, the interpretation and the application of the criteria
which I have referred to is carried out by the Director of Immigration on the basis of all the available information he has in relation to any particular proposal that might be put to him. He takes into account, for instance on the security side, the Special Branch checks on all applications for employment visas. He takes into
account any security objections which might come to his attention and any information which he might be able to obtain from sponsors, but it is up to the Director of Immigration to apply these criteria.
MR. BARROW: Sir, as all sectors of the business community remain concerned about this issue, would Government consider forming a small working group with the private sector to look into specific actions to alleviate the problem?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I do not think I am in a position to give an unequivocal answer to that this afternoon, Sir. I can say that it will be taken into consideration in the course of the present review which is being carried out.
MR. HO SAI-CHU: Sir, may I refer to the last sentence of the answer given by the Secretary, which I quote, "Inevitably many of these people join the local labour market". As we are well aware, most of these people coming into Hong Kong are for family reunion, that is to say, including mainly the aged as well as youth or children. Can the Secretary please enlighten the Council how many are there? If he has not got a figure, what is the percentage of these people coming to Hong Kong who would join the labour force?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Statistics compiled by the Census and Statistics Department show that the 27 000 or so one-way permit holders who arrived in 1987 contained 43% who were economically active in China. I can give a small breakdown of this: 15% were formerly farmers, hunters or fishermen, 12% were technicians and production workers, 5% were professional, administrative and executive workers and 12% with unspecified occupations.
MR. ALLEN LEE: In the first part of the Secretary for Security's answer, he gave four conditions for importation of foreign workers. Are these conditions mutually exclusive? If not, may I ask the Secretary what kind of workers will qualify for condition (c): ''that they possess a special skill, knowledge or experience of value to, and not readily available in Hong Kong''? If they are not mutually exclusive,
Sir, will the Secretary tell us what type of workers qualifies for (c): ''that they possess a special skill, knowledge or experience of value to, and not readily available in Hong Kong"?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I am sorry I did not make that clear. (a), (b) and (c) are not mutually exclusive. They are all qualifications which are necessary. Conditions (c) and (d), which is the fourth, are mutually exclusive. They are alternatives. As regards the second part of the question, I would have thought that was fairly self-explanatory, but it is a matter for the Director of Immigration to decide on the basis of the information that is supplied to him.
MR. CHEONG: Sir, part of my question has been answered by the Secretary for Security, but I wish simply to ask further. On the statistical information of about 43% being economically active, does the Census and Statistics Department have any age distribution at all and what is the meaning of "economically active"?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: 29% of the immigrants are below the age of 15, 18% between 15 and 24, 45% between 25 and 54, and the rest are over 55.
The Peak Cafe and its tenancy
2. MR. McGREGOR asked: Given the importance of Government being seen to act fairly in exercising its powers in relation to the administration of Crown land use in Hong Kong, will it inform this Council why the present tenant of the Crown land area on which the Peak Cafe is situated, who has been operating that establishment on an annually renewed lease for 41 consecutive years, was not given the opportunity to meet Government's specifications for the future operation of the Peak Cafe service before the site was put out to public tender on 23 September 1988?
SECRETARY FOR LANDS AND WORKS: Sir, the Peak Cafe building is graded by the Antiquities Advisory Board as a grade 2 historical building (which means it should be preserved if possible) and in 1974 on the basis of this grading, the Town Planning Board recommended its retention. Since 1966 the land has been held on an annual tenancy terminable at three months' notice by its present proprietor, who up till then had held the land on Crown Land Permit.
The cafe needs a level of expenditure on repairs and renovation to preserve its structure and to improve its interior, which is not consistent with annual tenancy. It is therefore proposed to let out the tenancy for a period of five years with appropriate clauses in the tenancy to require the tenant to renovate the buildings. It is not normal government policy to grant five year tenancies on extensions of annual tenancies and besides the tendering system will allow Government to ensure that the tenderers' plans for renovation are acceptable and appropriate. The present tenant is of course free to bid.
MR. McGREGOR: Sir, in respect of the second paragraph, will the Government therefore advise this Council whether the tender price offered by the successful tenderer for the Peak Cafe site is expected to represent the commercially viable proposition for the operation of a cafe and not a price which may be far above that figure?
SECRETARY FOR LANDS AND WORKS: Sir, the Government would expect that the price offered by a tenderer would, after expenditure on refurbishment, allow him to operate the restaurant as a commercially viable proposition.
Tragedy of a mentally handicapped child
3. MR. HUI asked: In view of the recent family tragedy in which a mother was reported to have hanged her 16-year-old mentally handicapped son and then herself because she was no longer able to look after the son, will Government inform this Council:
(a) what support services have been given by Government to the mentally handicapped son and the mother prior to the tragedy; and
(b) what Government can do to help prevent the occurrence of similar tragedies?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, this was a particularly sad case. The child had suffered not only from a severe mental handicap but also from tuberculosis.
He began treatment in the Ruttonjee Sanatorium in 1976. In 1977 the social worker
there arranged for him to receive a disability allowance. She also tried to arrange for him to be admitted to the Wong Tai Sin Disabled Children's Centre, but the family turned down this offer, because they are used to a diet based on congee and they felt that the children's centre's rice based diet would not suit the child.
When the child's treatment for tuberculosis finished in 1982, the medical social worker referred him to Arran Street Child Assessment Centre for a comprehensive assessment of his disabilities. The centre recommended him for placement in a special school for severely mentally handicapped children. He was offered a day school place in 1984 and again in 1985 but his parents declined because of their preference for a boarding school. In September 1987, after some persuasion, the parents agreed to his receiving home-based resource teaching, provided by a special school for the severely mentally handicapped.
Counselling, physiotherapy and occupational therapy services were also provided through home visits. According to the school records, the boy's family was co operative and the mother also took part in the home-based programme until last month when she began to suffer from severe headaches. The school recently told the parents that the boy would be admitted as a boarder as soon as its boarding section opened in April 1989. Earlier this month the school social worker approached the Social Welfare Department for charitable funds to purchase a more comfortable and adaptable seat for the boy. The family was invited to attend for an interview on 17 October, but unfortunately the tragedy had already occurred on 13 October without any indication that the family was in need of further support beyond that already being offered.
Sir, while it is not always possible to prevent such tragedies the Government, in co-operation with the voluntary sector, does try to provide systematically for the needs of mentally handicapped people of all ages. These services are set out in the Rehabilitation Programme Plan and are reviewed annually and improved as fast as resources can be made available. In all these services, especially those
concerned with the early education, training and care of the mentally handicapped, the participation of parents and family members is emphasized and encouraged. Public education to reduce prejudice against the disabled and promote their integration into the community is organized on a regular basis by both the Government and the voluntary sector.
The family services centres and medical social service units of the Social Welfare
Department also provide counselling services to families to help them cope with the practical and psychological problems of looking after severely handicapped members. When required, supporting services such as home-helps, financial assistance, clinical psychological services and day or residential placements can also be arranged.
In parallel with these services, in April this year the Government began to introduce a higher disability allowance of $1,120 a month to provide financial assistance to those disabled people who require constant attendance at home. The purpose is to help lessen the burden of the family in looking after a severely handicapped member and to promote care in the community. By April 1990 the scheme will cover all age groups.
MR. HUI: Sir, respite care or temporary residential care for the mentally handicapped is considered one of the ways to relieve heavy stress on family looking after mentally handicapped members. Policy approval to support this service was granted in 1982, but at present the service is run by voluntary agencies with only two beds being provided through the support of private funds. Could Government inform this Council why no financial support has been given to this service since policy approval was given six years ago, and what does Government plan to do to improve the situation?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, it is true that the concept of providing temporary residential care for the mentally handicapped serves to provide some relief for their families and was supported by the Housing Sub-committee of the Rehabilitation Development Co-ordinating Committee (RDCC) in 1982. However, it was recognized even then that priority must be given to the provision of long-term residential places of which there was and still is a significant shortage. However, the Social Welfare Department did take up the idea with the voluntary sector, but I understand they could only find one voluntary agency prepared to provide this service. Since there was not much known about the demand for this type of service or the best way to provide it in 1985, the agency started a small scale pilot project. The Social Welfare Department does have some reservations about the methods at present being used in this pilot project, since they involve additional residential and manpower resources to give very short-term training of one or two weeks to the temporary residents. Instead, the department has reserved accommodation in a hostel for the mentally handicapped in an estate to provide temporary residential service using existing resources. Applications for this new service will be invited next month
and the service will be expanded if there is a sustained demand.
MRS. TAM: Sir, both education and welfare services for the mentally handicapped adults aged 16 or above have been known to be quite inadequate in Hong Kong. Can the Administration inform this Council how it would propose to improve such services?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Yes, I agree with Mrs. TAM that this is the area of main concern and there is a significant shortage of such places, particularly residential places for the mentally handicapped adults. This problem particularly came to light in last year's review of the programme plan and as a result, it was decided to hold a further in-depth review of this subject jointly between Government and the voluntary sector. That review has been held this year and the main conclusion arising from the review is that residential and other service requirements for
mentally handicapped adults should be very carefully graded at five different levels according to the disability level, the care and training needs and the standard of self-care and daily living skills of each individual. The idea is that it is hoped that in this way, the training and support services can be fitted more exactly to the needs of each individual. And in this way, we can become more effective in helping people to improve their standards of skills and become more independent as quickly as possible. The Social Welfare Department is now following up the review and working out details of how to follow it up.
MR. EDWARD HO: Sir, the Secretary has confirmed that there is an acute shortage of boarding places for the mentally handicapped and he has cited a lot of problems. I would like the Secretary to inform us whether it boils down to the basic problem that not enough financial support is given by Government to improve the provision of these places?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I do not think it is as simple as that, and I would stress that the situation is fluid. The programme plan is reviewed every year. The shortfalls indicated in it in the future refer to existing known projects for which we already have an agreed sponsor. Apart from questions of funds, there is the question of shortage of trained manpower and there is also the question that it is sometimes difficult to find agencies willing to take on a particular task. But we hope to find means, apart from the measures which I have already mentioned, which we hope will reduce the demand by enabling people to build up their skills and become
less dependent. We also hope, from time to time, to develop new projects which will reduce the shortage in the future.
Member's Motion
EDUCATION COMMISSION REPORT NO. 3
MRS. SELINA CHOW moved the following motion:
" That this Council takes note of the recommendations in the Education Commission Report No. 3: the structure of tertiary education and the future of private schools".
MRS. CHOW: Sir, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As convenor of the Legislative Council ad hoc group formed to prepare for this debate, I would like to report that Members are only too aware of the divergent and sometimes opposing views held by themselves and those they represent, and have therefore not attempted to arrive at any consensus, but rather to leave themselves free to express as wide a spectrum of views as possible here today, after taking into full account opinions expressed following the publication of the Education Commission Report No. 3. I thank the Administration for offering ample opportunity for questions to be posed to them by the group. In view of the rather contrasting views held by our members, it is only sensible for me not to attempt to summarize them, as I am sure all points will be adequately covered by my 31 colleagues who will be speaking. From this point onwards, what I have to say represents my thinking both as a product of the Hong Kong education system and as a frustrated parent. Although many parents like myself do not have the expertise and experience of the more vocal impressive and organized educationalists, we certainly have as much a right to be heard.
It is no secret that more and more parents, particularly young parents, find the present school system unsatisfactory. Many who emigrate do so in order that their children can be freed from the pressure of Hong Kong schooling. Public examinations, deterioration of the languages, the dwindling importance of English, lowering
standard of moral education all aggravate the growing helplessness of parents. The new Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS) is a most imaginative solution to the problem.
For the last decade or so, because education had to be free and compulsory to all school children up to the age of 15, choice has been denied to parents. The present system is far too rigid to meet parents' aspirations for their children. Hong Kong's progress in the last two decades has brought with it a widening middle class whose affluence and sophistication demand more flexibility and variety of emphasis in our school system. The proposal contained in the report reflects a well-considered
concept with the proper balance and control. I am aware that critics of the system are once again crying "elitism" to discredit it. But before we fall prey to such emotive name-calling, we must pause and ask ourselves what the word means. If it means social divisiveness, then of course it is not worthy of any support. But if it means achieving the peaks of excellence in a school system which is already offering an acceptable standard to all, then I would ask, what is wrong with it? After all, are all parents not pursuing the very best for their children? And should society not provide the very best educational opportunity for the very best? And let us not confuse the educational elite with the social elite. The two are quite separate and different and have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the haves and have-nots. It is only by offering freedom to the schools and the parents at affordable fee levels that we will be able to achieve a system that answers to the need and the demand of caring parents.
May I now move on to the more contentious recommendation in the report regarding the structure of tertiary education.
Once again speaking as a parent, I must voice a strong objection to any change to the existing 5+2 years of secondary schooling. We have just rid ourselves of the Junior Secondary Education Assessment, which means we have finally put some peace back into the first five years of secondary education. It is universally recognized that in spite of nine years' compulsory education, the accepted completion of
secondary schooling is at Form V. The school leaving examination is meant to mark that completion. In order to get on to higher education it is only right that students have to be further prepared. Historically we have two years of matriculation. Over 90% of Hong Kong's schools have such a structure.
If we were to change the structure of secondary school to 5+1 or 3+3, it would involve a huge effort on everyone concerned -- the Government, the teachers and the principals. Such a change would also cause tremendous commotion and uncertainty in the community itself. It would certainly require very convincing justification before such a change can be contemplated.
From the arguments put forward by the various interest groups, it is clear that most people are not opposed to the merit of the common entry point into university. The question is, where should it take place?
The biggest bone of contention is of course whether a basic university course should be three or four years. In fact this issue so dominates the entire debate that the impression a layman gets is that this is what the report is all about.
Frankly, I find the Hong Kong University's argument for a foundation year not convincing. I cannot see the logic of the university taking over the work of the schools to resolve the problem of quality when it can be achieved by the setting of the entrance qualification, which is the prerogative of the university anyway. In spelling out its requirements, the university would be helping the schools to
determine the breadth and depth of matriculation education.
But of course we are only too aware that Hong Kong's university problem is aggravated substantially, if not created, by the Provisional Acceptance Scheme introduced by the Chinese University a few years ago, whereby Secondary VI students are accepted on the strength of their Form V examination results. This explains why there are over 50% repeaters for this Form V examination. It is serving two purposes instead of one -- as a school leaving qualification, and as university entrance examination. This development defeats the purpose of school leaving as well as the preparatory function of Secondary VI and VII.
I therefore support whole-heartedly the recent policy decision to retain the 5+2 configuration. At the same time I agree with the recommendation in the report that the length of any individual course should be determined in accordance with educational requirements by the tertiary institutions themselves. However I do not think that the length of first degree courses at all institutions should in principle be the same for any given subject. The autonomy of institutions should be respected. Furthermore, the traditions of different institutions warrant special and sympathetic consideration.
Sir, I support the Education Commission Report No. 3. I believe it is based on a deep understanding of what is required to improve our education system, and it reflects tremendous hard work in consultation, deliberation and debate within the commission. It is an outward and forward looking document, aiming
to correct some wrongs, to retain and upgrade some rights, and to catch up with the times. Let us see it adopted and implemented.
Sir, I so move.
Question proposed.
MR. CHEONG: Sir, before I begin, I should declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Hong Kong Polytechnic Council as well as a member of the Council of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). Allow me also to hail the efforts of all those who have deliberated for so long to produce the Education Commission Report No. 3. Whatever one's views about the recommendations, it cannot be denied that the commission members have addressed the thorny issues head on and have produced a
worthwhile document by slicing through a maze of issues laden with sectoral interests that have bisected our higher education system for the past decade.
Sir, no one will disagree that education is the very foundation of our long term future. This is particularly so in respect of tertiary education. As we are faced with the increasing threat of brain drain, we need to boost our capacity for offering more training facilities for our citizens who would then have the chance to take over the mantle. Hence it is timely for us to review deficiencies or otherwise of our tertiary sector and subsequently debate and make the necessary decision for improvement.
Unfortunately, views expressed over this report in the past few months have been rather emotional and in my humble view have strayed into issues that are quite irrelevant. For example, it is pointless to argue in general terms whether three-year degree courses or four-year degree courses would produce better university graduates. The usefulness of a course should be guided not solely by the views of academics but in fact by the end result of whether graduates from that course meet the requirement of the job market when they graduate. When I interview job applicants, whether they have spent three years or four years in a campus hardly ever comes into my equation of assessment. What is important is the graduates' basic knowledge, intellect and personal attributes. These qualities surely should be able to be developed within three years in any reasonably run tertiary institution. Therefore in my examination of the issues concerned, my analysis has been based largely on the
following considerations:
(1) What is the most cost-effective way for deploying any agreed amount of resources for tertiary education for the benefit of the community?
(2) Given the pressure in the coming years to increase the supply of university graduates to the community to fill vacancies created through emigration, what is the best system that would facilitate achieving this need?
Sir, it is of central and overriding importance that there should be a common entry point and a common selection point by the tertiary institutions. In this way, all candidates can choose, freely and fairly, from the full range of courses offered by all the institutions, and all the institutions can have equal opportunity to
attract the best applicants.
The common entry point should be following Form VII, after the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE). The normal academic length of degree courses should be three years, unless proven to the satisfaction of University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC) that longer length is required. This is the model which would best serve the interests of Hong Kong and should be the criterion for decision --
alternative approaches should not be advocated on the grounds that they more closely conform to practices elsewhere.
In any event, the suggestion that to adopt a four-year post-Form VI degree structure would bring Hong Kong into line with international practice is a serious over-simplification. In practice there is a multiplicity of systems in other parts of the world. In the United States, for example, institutions range from community colleges to research universities, and there are a variety of courses at different levels rather than a monolithic single system. In parts of western Europe the drop-out rate at the end of the first year is often high, and thus the first year of a four-year structure effectively operates as part of a selection process. Neither does there seem to be any compelling reason for Hong Kong to align with the Chinese system simply for the sake of such an alignment. The concept of "one country two systems" surely provides scope for Hong Kong to adopt a system which best suits its need.
Under present arrangements, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) is in an anomalous position in that it recruits students one year earlier than the other
institutions, and the standard length of its degree courses is four years. The original rationale for this arrangement was to cater for the need of students of Chinese middle schools but this is no longer applicable since such students only constitute a minority of CUHK intakes. Rather than allowing the problem to be compounded by other institutions adopting the CUHK model, the anomaly should therefore be rectified.
The case put forward by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) for moving to a "6+4" structure rests on quite different grounds and is based on alleged deficiencies in the candidates coming forward from Form VII, particularly with regard to language ability and a general intellectual maturity required of degree level studies. It should be noted that, strictly speaking, this is not an argument for four-year degree courses as such; it is an argument for some form of a foundation year designed to bring the students up to the level needed for entry to the three-year degree programmes.
It is not a case that stands up to close scrutiny .
First, if there are such deficiencies in students coming forward from Form VII, then such deficiencies will surely be much more pronounced one year earlier at the end of Form VI.
Second, surely the right approach to remedying such deficiencies lies in developing and improving sixth form education, and not in lengthening courses in the tertiary institutions.
Nevertheless, Sir, if the two universities either retain (in the case of CUHK) or adopt (in the case of HKU) a post-Form VI entry point, and if the Executive Council listens to their argument and agrees to it, the two polytechnics and HKUST would have no choice but to follow suit because of the overriding importance of having common entry and selection points in the system. They, in particular the two polytechnics, would also be obliged to follow suit by increasing the length of their current degree courses by one year because it would not be realistic for them to seek to bring
post-Form VI students to the degree level within three years. To attempt to do so would risk jeopardizing the system of external validation and professional recognition which underwrite the quality of their degree courses, especially in respect of the two polytechnics. Thus Hong Kong's present system of three-year degree courses (other than at CUHK), widely known and understood, and internationally accepted, would have been replaced, for no good reason, with a substantially more expensive four-year system.
The consequences of such a move for the secondary schools would be very serious indeed. Form VII would no longer be viable and would disappear along with the HKALE. It would be necessary to introduce a new major examination at the end of Form VI, both to provide a certificate for exit and to serve as an entry qualification for tertiary education. In this situation, the Hong Kong Certificate of Education
Examination (HKCEE) at the end of Form V could not be sustained and the result would almost inevitably be a straight six- year secondary course. This would in practice have the effect of raising the school leaving age for large numbers of pupils and would have enormous resource implications to the rest of the community.
Leaving aside, however, the question of the consequences on the schools, the fundamental fact is that to move to a four-year post-Form VI entry system for degree courses would very substantially raise the costs of educating each student enrolled in a degree course. Hong Kong would therefore be faced with the choice of educating fewer students for the same cost, or the same number of students for a greater cost.
To adopt the former option is hardly acceptable. Hong Kong is in need of more highly trained and educated manpower, not less, and the tertiary institutions are turning away many thousands of qualified applicants every year because there are no places for them. A recent study at the Hong Kong Polytechnic shows that, if funding does not increase, the consequence of running a four-year degree course would mean a potential loss of some 400 degree course places per year, and, if the number of degree courses is to be maintained, an overall loss of an equivalent of up to 1 500 places on full-time non-degree courses. The implications are very great indeed.
The second option of having the same number of students at greater costs is also open to serious objection. The same study at the Hong Kong Polytechnic reveals that if intakes to degree and non-degree courses are maintained, and four-year degree courses are introduced, there will be a need for approximately 135 additional
academic staff and new accommodation of approximately 6 350 sq m, plus more administrative and support staff, equipment, library provisions and so on, on a pro rata basis.
Surely if such additional resources are available, the first priority, given the need and demand for tertiary education, should be to improve access, and hence increase the outflow of qualified graduates into the workforce. Such a development would be in the best interests of the students, the employers and the Hong Kong
community generally.
Sir, before leaving the subject of tertiary education, may I suggest a serious examination by all concerned of the adoption of a credit unit system for degree courses at our tertiary institutions. The Council of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has deliberated its merits and has given support to its implementation. I firmly believe that this is the best way forward.
Turning to the issue of the future of private schools, the main consideration surely should centre on the question of which model will provide parents, be they rich or poor, with more choices. DSS must be the answer. The labeling of elitism against this scheme simply does not hold water. In this imperfect world, we must accept that no two individuals are equal in every aspect. The urge to reduce everyone to a common denominator is understandable and perhaps even emotionally appealing. Yet, it is an ideal that can never be achieved and in the Hong Kong context should not even be contemplated. Why should the rights of some be compromised or even
sacrificed for the sake of the slogan of equality? There is nothing wrong to strive to be better than thy next-door neighbour. After all, in this competitive world of ours, is it not true that we try our best to out-perform one another and in so doing, is it not natural that some will fare better than the other? Is it right to pull someone down to a lower level simply because he or she is better? Should our system build in constraints to restrain progress? No, Sir. Hong Kong's future survival depends on our people retaining a competitive spirit. What can better promote the urge and desire to move forward than the recognition of excellence? Elitism should never be regarded, as a matter of fact, as taboo nor should it be equated invariably with wealth as if only the wealthy can become the elites of the society. In fact, in the context of Hong Kong, hardly anyone can claim that the elites of our society are people of very wealthy means.
Sir, I support the motion.
MR. CHAN (in Cantonese): Sir, education is an investment in the future, that is why we all hope that we can provide a better education for Hong Kong people. After the publication of the report by the Llewellyn Panel, I thought that significant improvement would be made to our educational system. But things are easier said than done! The present review of the structure of tertiary education is a good example.
Basically, Education Commission Report No. 3 has established a unified pattern of "five-year secondary education, two-year matriculation course and three-year university education" and discarded another pattern of "three-year junior secondary education, three-year senior secondary forms and four-year university education." Many secondary school headmasters have indicated that unless there were very strong grounds, they would not accept the proposal of replacing the "5+2" system with the "3+3" system. The reason is that should the "3+3" system be adopted, the Form IV to Form VI curricula would have to be split into two streams, namely grammar and vocation, otherwise competition among Form VI students for higher studies would become even keener. However, experience has proved that most parents prefer sending their children to grammar schools. Besides, these principals have also pointed out that should the "3+3" system be adopted, a large number of teachers would have to undergo retraining, school curricula would have to be revised and school premises modified in order to meet the new requirements. Thus, it can be said that the balance of the whole structure will be upset by a minor change.
Nevertheless, the Wan Chai District Board which I represent, unanimously supports the "3+3+4" system. The Eastern District Board has also discussed this matter and among the 15 members who have spoken on the issue, the majority are inclined to support the "3+3+4" structure.
I personally do not think the "5+2+3" system is better than the "3+3+4" pattern. However, the former is more practical and suitable for the actual situation in Hong Kong. Although the option of 3 years' junior secondary plus three-years' senior secondary education is worth considering, it cannot be accepted at this stage. In regard to the university structure, I am inclined to support a three-year degree course. Past experience cannot prove that a four-year degree course is any better than a three-year programme. The University of Hong Kong has indicated that the standards of its students are declining, but this is another matter which I shall dwell on later. We should try to provide more university places, this is far more important than lengthening the degree course. At present, there is a shortage of university places in Hong Kong, our tertiary institutions can only provide first degree courses for about 6.5% of young people in the relevant age group, and it will take 10 years to raise the ratio to 14.5%.
The shortage of university places has exerted considerable pressure on our students. The same pressure is also experienced by parents who have therefore become dissatisfied with the local educational system. Those who can afford the expenses
simply send their children abroad, for it is easier to enter universities in other countries than in Hong Kong. I believe this is also one of the main reasons behind the exodus of Hong Kong people. Providing more university places can help take some pressure off our students and parents and may also lead to the broadening of the secondary school curriculum.
The shortage of university places also affects the sixth form structure which is designed for the sole purpose of preparing students to study in universities. In order to meet matriculation requirements, the sixth form courses run by various schools have become increasingly demanding. As the subjects offered are also designed to meet matriculation requirements, the choices available to students are very limited. As a result, the full development of students is hindered and the design of the secondary school curriculum is also affected. On promotion to Form IV from Form III, even before the students are mentally and psychologically mature, they have to decide whether they should go into the science or arts stream. On the other hand, the university authorities criticized the newly admitted students as too narrow minded both intellectually and academically, for they only know how to concentrate on some highly specialized subjects. I think the crux of the problem lies in the acute shortage of university places.
I am firmly opposed to the proposal of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong to admit students after Form VI. In my opinion, the two-year sixth form should be an integral course, for this structure is beneficial to the community as well as the students themselves. At present, about one-third of our students have completed the matriculation course before leaving school to work. And the performance of this group of students is generally found to be better than those who have only studied up to Form V. In view of this, it is advisable that the universities admit their students after Form VII when the students have become more mature mentally and psychologically. The setting of the admission point at Form VI will only lead to the disintegration of the sixth form structure.
The University of Hong Kong commented that its new students could not reach the standard required of them and were generally poor in their English standard. There was thus a need to introduce a one-year foundation course. I am also worried that the quality of our university education will decline because of the above reasons, but I do not think that the introduction of the foundation year is the only solution. Rather, I think we should try to strike at the root of the problem. Now that the University of Hong Kong has already raised the admission requirements in the English
subject, we might as well wait and see the result. On the other hand, our secondary schools are also making every endeavour to improve the students' declining English standard. As regards the broadening of the mentality and knowledge of the students, it is open to question whether the remedial work should be done by the university or be left to secondary schools.
I personally do not favour the idea of giving the job to the university. Although the university authorities hold that it is better to run remedial courses for 2 000 undergraduates than for some 35 000 Form VI students. However, the poor standard of our students in fact reflects the inadequacy of our secondary school education. It is imperative that we should improve the quality of the secondary education, and put more efforts in strengthening the nine-year compulsory education, so as to help our students build a sound foundation. We should also broaden the sixth form curriculum and include more subjects in the matriculation syllabus, so that the students will not put all their efforts in a few subjects and ignore all other matters. As for the universities, they should concentrate on studies and researches of a higher level and play a role different from that of the polytechnic. It is indeed a waste of
resources for the universities to take up some work that can be done at the secondary level.
Sir, based on the above reasons, I tend to support the "5+2+3" system. But how do we tackle the problem of the present four-year degree course run by the Chinese University of Hong Kong? I think as the Chinese University of Hong Kong has a history of 25 years, and has developed a tradition of its own, it would be improper and unfair to require it to adopt a three-year programme through administrative measures. The proper approach should be to allow the institution to retain the traditional four-year degree course.
In the long term, it is necessary to establish a unified system of university education. I suggest that the Chinese University of Hong Kong should move towards a credit unit system. The institution may conduct courses during the summer break so that the undergraduates can complete their first degree course within a time span of three to four years. The system should of course be backed up by resources allocated by the Government, so that the Chinese University of Hong Kong may employ more
lecturers to run the summer courses.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MRS. FAN: Sir, as Members may already know I am a member of the Education Commission and an employee of the Hong Kong Polytechnic. However, the view that I express in this debate is not related to the stance of either bodies, but represents my personal thinking.
The structure of tertiary education has been the subject of controversial debate for the past decade, but the problem of mixed entry point to first degree courses which affected both the secondary sector and the tertiary sector deteriorated rather than improved with the passage of time. It had to be dealt with. Due to strong sectoral interests, no solution is about to win the support of all affected. But we must find solutions if the good of the students and the interest of the community means something to us. Nor should we delay the implementation of the solution any longer than is necessary. Our students deserve the freedom of choice by having all the possible options of degree courses in local institutions presented to them at one point - the common entry point. The tertiary institutions, which understandably like to attract the best students, should do so by fair and healthy competition.
Tertiary institutions in Hong Kong are very fortunate compared to their counterparts in other countries, because only 6.5% of our age group can gain admission to first degree courses while in developed countries the percentage ranges from 12% to 30% or even more. Given the fact that our secondary school students cannot be proven to be less intelligent than students in developed countries, and indeed, some might claim the reverse, the students in our tertiary institutions should be a joy to teach. There is, therefore, no valid reason for any institutions to use administrative measures to snatch the cream of the cream by offering places to them one or two years earlier. The sensible approach is to implement a common entry point, which incidentally also means a common selection point, for all first degree courses. However the Government may be accused of interfering with academic freedom. Indeed, the commission had already been accused of this offence. Selection of students is an area of institutional autonomy. The University and Polytechnic Grants Committee has this to say, "Whatever may be the procedures for setting or controlling entrance examinations, or for setting total student number targets, or for setting student intake targets, the institutions have unfettered rights in the selection or rejection of students presented as candidates for admission." Whether this in effect provides the institutions with the right to select students at whatever level they choose is open to serious questioning. But even granting that, should tertiary institutions' admission policies not be subject to scrutiny by the community, in particular the
secondary sector which stands to suffer from unilateral changes in these policies, and the taxpayers who are footing the bill?
The responsibility for today's state of affairs hardly rests solely on tertiary institutions. It is the combination of history, evolution and development, and procrastination on the part of the Government. What have served us well two decades ago is no longer appropriate. The secondary sector had evolved with 5+2 as its mainstream, with 91% of the student population studying under the 5+2 structure. The Government's acceptance of status quo to avoid confrontation some years ago has unwittingly resulted in more intensified emotional reactions today. A decision on the common entry point at Form VII can no longer be deferred. Although personally I would very much like to see a consensus, I have to admit that this is not realistic. If the issue is dragged on any longer, it would only serve to polarize and exacerbate the problem. In short, status quo is not a viable option.
Although the commission did not advocate a particular length for first degree courses, and wisely left this to the institutions and University and Polytechnic Grants Committee, thereby allowing greater flexibility and showing clear respect for academic freedom, some commentators had relentlessly attacked the commission for recommending a three-year degree course. It was sad to witness well respected academic figures making misleading comments. But sadder still, is the use of nationalistic, anti-colonial feelings to cast a cloud of conspiracy on the commission's
recommendation by some people when they have no basis at all to support their allegations and insinuations. I must say that such comments have little relevance and has a tendency to mislead the public.
It was suggested that Hong Kong should follow the world trend and adopt the 3+3+4 model. I wish to offer two comments. First, the structure of education system must suit the particular requirements of our community. Transplantation of a well-tried model elsewhere is not necessarily a guarantee for success. Secondly, the assertion that four-year degree course is a world trend is an over-simplified version of the actual situation as the Honourable Stephen CHEONG has already pointed out. It fails to take into account the great variety in academic contents and standards of these courses in different countries, the very high wastage rate in the first year, and the fact that well established universities in developed countries aim to be "centre of excellence" and therefore tend to concentrate more on higher level work and
research. If there is any trend in higher education, then the tendency is to move up-market and to shorten the length of the first degree course.
The virtues of the 3+3 system vis-a-vis the 5+2 system was exhaustively debated during the public consultation of Education Commission Report No. 2, and most of the arguments were repeated in this consultation exercise. I listened and considered most carefully the views of various representations received by OMELCO. Despite the
eloquence of some presentations, I am yet to be convinced that the change to 3+3 system in secondary schools will bring to our students the acclaimed benefits.
It is difficult to overlook that the 5+2 system is already in place, the Certificate Examination and A-Level do receive wide recognition internationally, and improvements to sixth form are at this very moment being implemented. Can we be sure
that the disruptive effect of changing to 3+3 is not going to lower the overall standard of the secondary sector in the short and medium term? What if the tertiary institutions are still dissatisfied with the output of secondary schools in the 3+3 system? Are we confident in obtaining international recognition of the Form VI school leaving examination in 3+3 system? And how long will this take? Should we resurrect the Junior Secondary Education Assessment at the end of Form III to get an objective assessment for students to be streamed? Sir, I do not wish to sidetrack this debate on structure of tertiary education. Suffice it to say that there are insufficient grounds to alter the structure of secondary education in order to enable tertiary institutions to take in students at Form VI.
Some commentators felt that the matriculation course is a waste of time and it should be abolished. Their views are based on the present state of the course. The fact that the two-year A-Level course suffers from problems of narrowness, too academic oriented, insufficient attention on languages and general education and so on is well recognized, and is indeed, dealt with in depth by Education Commission Report No. 2. Measures to overcome these problems were proposed, and representatives from tertiary institutions are already working together with secondary school people and Education Department officials to develop a more appropriate set of syllabus for sixth form. There is no doubt that sixth form needs improvement. We have identified what our students need. They have better language ability, broader general knowledge, ability to think analytically and independently. Students in secondary schools, especially those in upper forms and sixth form, should be given the opportunity to acquire these qualities. I believe the improved two-year integrated sixth form can achieve this. Abolition of sixth form is not the answer.
One of our universities proposes to admit students from Form VI and gives them
a foundation year to instil in them the qualities mentioned earlier. While the objective seems educationally sound, is the foundation year the only way to achieve it? One must not lose sight of the fact that the university in question enjoys substantial influence over the syllabus of A-Level, and is totally free to give emphasis to the above mentioned qualities by amending its admission requirements. Knowing our secondary school students, whatever the university requires, every possible effort within the realm of human limitations will be made to meet these requirements. Are there really sufficient justifications for the university to take over Form VII secondary schools?
The number of years a student spends in a degree course is only one of the factors contributing to the quality of education, and sometimes, bears no direct relevance to the benefit received by the students. Other more important factors are: teaching methods, which can stimulate the thinking process and motivation of the students; curriculum planning and review, which ensures that the course content is well
balanced, suitable and constantly updated; and of course staff- student contact hours, which gives an indication of the workload of the staff and students. To imply that the quality of education is lowered simply because the student spent one year less in the tertiary institution without reference to the one additional year of study at Form VII nor with reference to factors referred to earlier is naive. There is no proof that four years post-Form VI is better or worse off than three years post Form VII. There is, however, objective evidence that the quality of three-year degree at post-Form VII level offered by the non-university institutions in Hong Kong does reach the international standard. Vigorous and thorough validation exercises were carried out by the Council of National Academic Award on each and every degree course proposed and implemented by non-university institutions. Quality and standards are jealously preserved. I hope I do not upset anyone by pointing out that students, by and large, still tend to choose degree courses offered by universities in preference to non-university institutions degree courses. The intake of the latter institutions is probably less well developed intellectually than their university counterparts at the entry point. Yet, in three years' time, these students are able to reach degree and honours degree standards. Are we to believe that the non-university institutions are exceptionally able in their educational role, or are the universities too modest about their own capability and achievements?
Sir, I believe the best way to extract ourselves from this meaningless argument on the length of degree course is to encourage tertiary institutions to move into a credit unit system with a common entry point at post-Form VII. Through continued
assessment and accumulation of credit units, students can enjoy the flexibility of taking longer or shorter time to finish their degree. Those who are eager to join the working world may prefer to work intensively and obtain their qualifications earlier. Those who enjoy the richness of campus life can devote more time to the library, the student common room, the sports centre and the students' union.
The commission, in making its recommendations, had worked through a web of sectoral interests, and tried to take on board all the reservations that can reasonably be met. In the final analysis, we need the universities, and in particular, we need their co-operation with secondary schools for the system to work. This is why universities have no need to be overtly concerned that their interest will be overlooked. However, priority consideration must be given to the large number of students in secondary schools and those of them who will have the opportunity to be offered a degree place. On average, there are four qualified applicants for one degree place. To provide more opportunities for qualified applicants to study on degree courses, to cater for the manpower needs of industry, commerce and the services, and to allow secondary schools the chance to do their job properly in a stable structure without unnecessary disruptions, Sir, I think the recommendations of the commission should be accepted.
On the issue of the future of private schools, there are two models that readily present themselves. In the first model, all the bought places in private schools are phased out and the private schools that survive will be totally independent of government assistance. These independent schools will have to charge very high fees to make ends meet, thereby they will not be accessible to children of lower and middle income groups. The latter group is of course guaranteed a place in the public sector -- government schools and aided schools, although parents have little choice on which schools their children will study in. The second model is the Direct Subsidy Scheme. Private schools can stay in the Bought Place Scheme until the year 2000, and can apply to join DSS if and when they reach the standard of aided schools. The level of subsidy to DSS schools is directly in reverse to the amount of school fees charged, thereby reducing the incentive of DSS schools to charge high fees. Parents can choose the DSS school they prefer and put in applications. The question is: "Which model is more preferable for the private schools and the community, in particular, the parents and their children?"
My response is: "which model will give the parents more choice, irrespective of their economic background?" DSS clearly has the edge. In the education of our next
generation, parental choice should play a significant role, because only with the full co-operation of the parents can the schools and the teachers assist the students to develop their real potential. The implementation of nine years free and compulsory education, and under the principle of equality and fairness, the choice by the parents has been reduced to minimal in our present system.
Even with DSS, the number of these schools is limited. Therefore only some parents can have a choice. But even this is immensely better than letting the computer decide your child's school for you. Parents who care about their children's education and are prepared to select a school whose curriculum suits their child's need should at least be given a chance to apply for that school. Surely equality and fairness does not mean depriving parents of a choice. To me, equality means every child should have the opportunity of education, and the quality of that education must at least be at the level of the public sector schools. But over and above that, children with different abilities and inclinations should also be allowed to further develop and strengthen these qualities in a conducive environment offered by a DSS school with the appropriate curriculum, provided that their parents are prepared to take the trouble. The weakness of our existing system is that even if the parents are prepared to take the trouble, and they do care, there is very little they could do. What is proposed in the DSS is not "elitism" nor "retrogression", but simply a little bit more say for the parents.
Most of the queries and criticisms on DSS are of a technical nature, these could be taken on board and sorted out at a later stage if the concept of DSS receives support in principle. There is, however, one major reservation on the fundamentals of DSS by 97 members from district boards and municipal councils and other representations. They envisaged that because the DSS schools can select their own students, these schools will take the best students and become "first class" schools, thus causing the schools in the public sector to be seen as "second class". The Caput Schools Council, on the other hand, thinks that if the DSS schools have to attract their own students rather than being allocated students by the Government, there is no chance of survival, and in view of this, they oppose the move to DSS. This seemingly
contradictory stand of the two groups is because they are looking at DSS from two extremes. The first group assumed that DSS schools consist of all the best aided schools in the terrority, and the second group assumed that only the existing private schools and caput schools will be in DSS. The real situation, I suspect, will evolve into somewhere in between. There will be a few aided schools (not necessarily the most well-known ones) and a number of private schools. These DSS schools would each
have their own characteristics and teaching methods, including different emphasis on curriculum and extra-curricular activities. The image of DSS schools, I envisage, is not necessarily one of academic excellence, but rather one with individual characteristics offering varieties and some "extras".
The DSS school is innovative and imaginative. I believe it is worth looking into further.
Sir, I support the motion.
MR. PETER POON: Sir, before I begin, I wish to declare my interest as the vice chairman of the Council and Treasurer of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. What I am going to say, however, represent my own views after considering carefully the Education Commission Report No. 3 and representations received by Members of this Council. I would also make some observations on the divergent views expressed on the report.
Broadly speaking, the report attempts to rationalize the education system in Hong Kong. Whilst its objectives are laudable and much effort has been made to find the best solutions to many complicated problems, the recommendations have aroused a lot of controversy. At times, it even becomes an emotional issue. I hope that this debate will bring out the views and sentiments logically and constructively.
Since many colleagues will be speaking this afternoon, I shall be brief and shall confine my comments to Chapter Three -- The Structure of Tertiary Education .
Sir, I agree entirely that there is a tremendous shortage of places in our tertiary institutions. The Governor's policy speech has emphasized the need and his determination to increase such places substantially in the years to come. Nevertheless, I am sure few will disagree that quality should not be sacrificed for quantity especially at a time when Hong Kong has to make itself competitive in the international arena.
Two of the major recommendations in Chapter Three are that there should be a common university entry point after Form VII, and that the length of first degree courses of a similar nature at all tertiary institutions should be the same, basically three years.
There are merits in both the three-year system and four-year system in university education. The Government has decided to adopt the policy of developing a system with two years of sixth form education before this debate on tertiary education is open. It has virtually pre-determined the direction of the recommendations of the Education Commission. It is stated in paragraph 3.27 (page 29) of the report that "the perpetuation of the existing mixed system cannot be tolerated". Sir, I cannot see why flexibility must be completely ruled out. I fully sympathize with secondary schools regarding the loss of students after Form VI. It must be recognized that most of these students have left for further studies overseas. Many of them go to countries with four-year university courses. Since the total intake of the
University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong is fixed under the present system, I believe that a rigid unified matriculation point at Form VII will not solve the problem of the substantial outflow of students after Form VI. It may, on the contrary, worsen the situation if students are denied the opportunity of
entering a local university after Form VI.
Sir, the suggestion that the basic length for most degree courses of a similar nature should be fixed at three years would, I am afraid, infringe the academic freedom of the tertiary educational institutions, especially the universities. Each of these institutions has its own fine traditions and complete standardization is undesirable. For instance, even in the United Kingdom which has a three-year system in the tertiary education sector, there are various courses of different lengths which may lead to a law degree.
Financial implications have been used as one of the justifications for the recommendations. The validity of the basis of the calculation has, however, been challenged by some. I do not propose to get involved in any such argument. But I feel that it may not be necessary for the UPGC to allocate funds to subsidize the full length of the post-Form VII four-year courses of all the tertiary institutions unless the need for the additional year is fully justified and finances permit. The tertiary institutions have their particular roles in higher education and I think that it is not desirable to attempt to stereotype them.
In a progressive society like ours, certain changes in our educational system are inevitable, but any change would need to be considered thoroughly for the good of Hong Kong. Sir, it would be a great pity for the Government to rush into major changes which would have far-reaching effects and repercussions without further
consideration and review of the many problems which may arise. Although there are certain advantages in uniformity, the lack of flexibility and the likely sacrifice of the fine traditions of the Chinese University's four-year basic system of bilingual and broad-based education, fostered so hard for over 25 years and with a successful record, may not be in the best interest of Hong Kong. It may not also achieve the objective of producing the wide range of talents that Hong Kong needs in the coming years to replace the experienced graduates and professionals emigrating from the territory.
Sir, I prefer option (c) of the report. Paragraph 3.43 of the report states that socially and financially, there would be no adverse consequences in comparison with the existing situation. There is no reason why the "freedom to choose" should be taken away from the students seeking to enter the universities in Hong Kong,
especially when the two universities have agreed on a joint admission scheme in principle. The introduction of the scheme would greatly reduce the disruption of the Provisional Acceptance System of the Chinese University.
In the final analysis, we need more time and consultation to find the best solution to our educational problems in totality. In view of the divergent views expressed on the Education Commission Report No. 3, the hasty adoption of any option may not help in achieving the desired objectives. In the meantime, all tertiary institutions should co-operate in the identification of solutions that would improve our
educational system and increase the number of graduates within the ambit of their educational ideals and constraints of resources available.
Sir, with these reservations, I support the motion.
MR. CHENG HON-KWAN: Sir, before I speak on the structure of tertiary education referred to in the Education Commission Report No. 3, I have to declare an interest as the chairman of the Council of the City Polytechnic, the vice-chairman of the Council of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, the Chairman of the Planning Committee for the Open Learning Institute and a member of the Board of Governors and Council of the Lingnan College. And I wish to make it clear that the views I am going to express may not necessarily represent those of these institutions.
I recall that at the adjournment debate on the Education Commission Report No. 2 on 18 February 1987, I said, "I agree that a centralized system of admissions to
tertiary education is a desirable objective, so long as it is based on a genuinely unified level of entry." I am pleased that the Education Commission has now recommended joint admission procedures to be introduced by all UPGC-funded institutions with a unified entry point.
On 12 October, Sir, in his speech to the first sitting of this Council, the Governor referred to the Government's early acceptance, in May this year, of the Education Commission's recommendation in its Report No. 2 for strengthening the standard two-year sixth form course. The Governor said, "This will allow for a more varied and broadened curriculum, giving students a greater choice and providing the possibility of a common entry point to tertiary education". As I understand it, the great majority of the secondary schools supported this concept of five years of secondary education followed by two years' sixth form. I am convinced that the proposed unified entry system after Secondary VII will enable a worthwhile sixth form education to be developed with broadened curriculum. I agree that by doing so the unreasonable pressure on students which arises from the need to take part in a number of examinations to maximize their chances of entry to higher education will be largely relieved and the fierce competition between tertiary institutions will be eased accordingly.
Whilst much of this debate will revolve around the question of the length of first degree courses, I would stress the importance of adopting a credit unit system in our tertiary institutions whereby the students are permitted to make the best use of their accumulated credit units as well as a more flexible timing. It is the
responsibility of the tertiary institutions to plan their own courses or programmes to provide the students with the best options that would meet their ultimate aim. It is encouraging that the City Polytechnic has already organized courses on a modular basis to enable the students to make the wider applications of their studies with a broad outlook in their education. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has also decided to adopt the credit system which would make varied length of
instruction and enhanced studies possible. I shall be delighted if a system of credit unit accumulation and transfer may be widely applied to all other tertiary institutions.
Sir, any modification to our education system will no doubt have, to some extent, financial implications which could be the concern of the community. I am conscious of the fact that given finite resources, lengthening degree courses will invariably reduce the number of degree places and the output of graduates. In the case of
non-university institutions, either degree places or sub-degree places or indeed both will suffer. Any available resources that would otherwise be used for extending the years of degree courses could well be effectively used for further development of our tertiary education. We are fully aware of our need for more places at tertiary level and Government has made great efforts to develop our higher education in recent years. Although we have now provided first degree courses for about 6.5% of young people in the relevant age group and will increase these places to some 14% by the year 2000, I must say these percentages are much lower than international standards and should be regarded as far from satisfactory. It is therefore essential for us at this stage and in the medium term to make the best use of our available resources to provide more opportunities for our young people to benefit from higher education and this is especially important at a time when we all suffer from the problem of brain drain. In the circumstances, I should congratulate the Education Commission on their broad vision and sensible recommendation for first priority to be given to increasing the number of students entering tertiary institutions each year.
Some of our educationists are concerned about the quality of our higher education if we try to improve it quantitatively. I appreciate their worry but in the light of my own experience I can assure them that it is always our aim to plan our tertiary institutions to a very high international standard with the best available resources.
Sir, I support the recommendations of the Education Commission in respect of the structure of tertiary education. I firmly believe the improvement that will emerge from the implementation of these recommendations, if accepted, will bring about a unified system of tertiary education best suited to the needs of Hong Kong under the present circumstances. Today, I am not speaking in favour of nor against any tertiary institution. But I am speaking for the interest of Hong Kong as a whole.
With these remarks, Sir, I support the motion.
MR. CHUNG (in Cantonese): Sir, as a member of the Council of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, I hope I can adopt a reasonable and objective outlook in assessing the Education Commission Report No. 3.
It is noteworthy that Report No. 3 mainly plans ahead for us a major, comprehensive and long-term programme in education. It carries the same spirit as the many other large-scale capital projects recently announced, reflecting in full that Hong Kong Government is ever willing to be responsible and efficient in the "transitional
period".
Since the publication of Report No. 3 on 16 June 1988, two of its proposals have attracted the greatest concern: (1) with the establishment of a two-year structure for matriculation courses, all tertiary institutions would standardize their admission point at Secondary VII, and (2) with the introduction of a Direct Subsidy Scheme, the Bought Place Scheme and other subvention schemes would gradually be phased out.
These two proposals have attracted extensive and strong reactions with opposing and supporting views. For a responsible government, it is only natural that consultation will encourage all kinds of dissenting or identical views. I hope the Administration will pay close attention to all public opinion, especially those from the education sector, and give serious consideration to them.
It has been pointed out that the reason behind the Education Commission's emphasis on the setting up of a two-year sixth form is to build up a basic, unified and permanent "5+2+3" structure in our education system with five-year secondary education, two-year matriculation course and three-year university study. In other words, students complete Form VII before they are admitted to the tertiary institutions. This is a means to force the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) to shorten its courses from four years to three years and debar the University of Hong Kong (HKU) from changing its three-year system to a four-year system.
In my opinion, there are inherent advantages in a two-year matriculation course. Firstly, a two-year course can help to alleviate the "confusion" now existing in Form VI and Form VII. Secondly, a unified entrance point can be set for the tertiary institutions and it will be technically viable for all tertiary institutions to have a joint admission procedure. Thirdly, the academic qualifications awarded after Form VI and Form VII can be helpful to students in job-seeking or for furtherance of studies at university level.
Nevertheless, we must admit that the two-year matriculation course is not without its shortcomings.
Firstly, the greatest problem of the proposal is that the entrance point for any three-year first degree courses seems to have been set at Form VII level while at the same time the tertiary institutions are allowed a free hand in determining the
length of their courses. This discrepancy not only reveals the dubious nature of the proposal for an independent matriculation course, it also interferes with the structure and operation of all institutions involved.
Secondary, the Education Commission admits that the nine-year free and compulsory education has lowered the average English standard of Form III students. The report, however, seems to entrust the two-year sixth form with the responsibility to make up for this decline. The teaching time of the three-year first degree courses is also intended to increase by one third so that students can improve their language ability. If the Education Commission uses this as a reason for proposing the "5+2+3" system, it will be most inappropriate in the development of our education system.
Thirdly, in order to prove the cost-effectiveness of the option for the two year sixth form and three-year degree courses, the Education Commission, most strangely, presented a $700 million option for the two-year sixth form and four year degree courses and then had it vetoed. Why and how can it be possible that an extra year is added on top of the Education Commission's self-devised "5+2+3" system in preparing budgetary forecast?
Fourthly, the Education Commission has made it clear it will not adopt any foreign education system, yet on the other hand, the report stresses that " it will be necessary to bear in mind the requirements of professional bodies in the United Kingdom to which Hong Kong graduates require admission." It is just shamming refusal. The British model is to be retained in Hong Kong after all. The British three-year degree course system is not without merits, but the proposal has overlooked the international trend towards four-year degree courses and has not taken into account the situation after 1997 in respect of opportunities for tertiary education and employment.
Fifthly, the fact shows that local students' demand for recognized university places far exceeds supply. Every year, the number of Hong Kong students leaving for Britain for tertiary education is only one-seventh of the total number of students studying abroad at tertiary level. We must bear in mind that after completing Form VI in Hong Kong, students can now start their first year degree courses in America and China; or right after the completion of Form VII as required, they can start the second year of the honours degree courses in Britain. Thus when Form VII students are not guaranteed a place in the universities in Hong Kong, the two-year sixth form would be a kind of wastage for it would only train students for other countries and
aggravate the outflow of students.
I agree that the two-year sixth form has its intrinsic value, but I think that this proposal should not constitute a restraint on university education. In fact, the Education Commission has considered the two-year sixth form within the context of tertiary education. It would be unreasonable and unnecessary to shorten the length of degree courses in order to extend matriculation courses.
If the Education Commission Report No. 3 really believes that the five subvented tertiary institutions at present can decide for themselves the length of various degree courses, it will be unnecessary to impose hard and fast rules on the length of first degree courses. Under the present system, science courses last five years, arts subjects three to four years and technical courses two to three years. The
difference in course length has caused no problem in the development of these subjects. Furthermore, Hong Kong is advancing towards a high degree of specialized division of labour. As far as our tertiary education is concerned, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology as well as the Open Learning Institute will soon be
established. Students have to put what they have learnt into application. Thus the differences in the length of different degree courses will become less significant.
At present, while the two-year sixth form can solve the problems of the matriculation structure, it apparently gives rise to the problem of the length of the first degree courses. The authorities concerned and the tertiary institutions should actively seek a compromise on this issue. Before a better solution can be reached, I would like to put forth the following suggestions:
1. If both CUHK and HKU advocate a four-year programme for their first degree courses, consideration may be given, on basis of the autonomy and actual needs of the two universities, to devise flexible arrangement for admissions to the various faculties, including making the results attained at Form VI as one of the entrance requirements with reference to students' academic performance. Students who are
qualified to be promoted to a higher level may be allowed to study in the first year (that is, the pre-university study or foundation year) of the course they choose. This proposal aims at finding a solution which would resolve satisfactorily the contradiction between the two-year sixth form and four-year degree course. It is understandable that universities, prompted by their sense of responsibility, will form their opinion about government policies and make proper arrangements to cater for their actual needs. If change is inevitable, ample time should be allowed for
the universities to make adjustment academically and administratively. For those institutions offering three-year degree courses, the admission point can also be set at Form VI. Reference can then be made to the results of the students who are suitable for promotion as a basis for admission to first year of the courses offered by the institutions or for application to degree courses of the two universities.
2. The Government should guarantee that for any proposals to extend the three-year basic degree course put up by the subvented institutions or in scrutinizing subsidy applications, consideration will be given to the actual needs of the students
and the academic grounds for such proposals. The Government should not impose restrictions on such proposals merely on financial or administrative grounds.
3. The question of the duration of the matriculation course and the basic degree courses is not as important as the question of prompt expansion of more faculties and further increase in the number of places of the first degree courses The Government should therefore follow the existing university building policy to increase, as far as possible, the allocation of fund for tertiary education.
4. If it is considered that the academic standard of tertiary students is lower than before, in order to maintain our degree and professional qualification at internationally recognized standard, the education authorities should set up an ad hoc group with representatives from the tertiary education and secondary school sectors. The ad hoc group should discuss and devise the curricula and teaching methods for matriculation classes. Particular attention should be given to language teaching which aims at improving the students' standard from the start.
5. The Education Commission should review the report or other related problems and make amendment or put forth better proposals if necessary in order to formulate a better and long-term education policy which can cater for the needs of our social development and the demands of the matriculants.
Sir, I believe that the spirit of the report and its proposal for an independent matriculation course deserve our applause and support. However, I hope the Administration will give serious consideration to the aforesaid five suggestions in order to avoid any unnecessary constraints on the development of degree courses by the two-year sixth form system.
On the proposal of Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS), I think its greatest merit lies
in the accentuation of the principle of freedom in education. If more people or organizations are encouraged to run schools, I believe, apart from the provision of education service by the public sector, it will be most conducive to the aggregation of private resources and the introduction of the market force into the expansion and development of Hong Kong's education.
Nevertheless, we must give further thoughts to the scheme because the report has offered no precise or substantive plans or requirements to enable the private schools to decide whether they will join the Direct Subsidy Scheme. For example, what are the terms of the "five-year contract" to be signed between the Government and private schools? What are the consequences for the breaching of the conditions? No judgement can be made from an option which merely contains principles.
In order to save discussion time, my preliminary views on the DSS can be boiled down to the following three points:
1. The Government should devise appropriate methods so that all the existing 67 private secondary school can be on the same footing when they start this free competition to join the DSS or else unfair situation will emerge at secondary school level in which the scheme will be dominated by "prestigious schools."
2. A private education fund should be set up within the DSS so as to provide scholarships and bursaries to those brilliant students in need of financial support. Each participating school should set up a number of scholarships and bursaries on a pro rata basis in relation to the total number of students in the school. This will help to remove all the restraints which may prevent students from schooling.
3. After the implementation of the DSS, newly established schools are welcomed to join if they can meet all the requirements. However, in the first few years of operation, it would be best not to accept subsidized schools. Such exclusion is intended to achieve a balance in the development of the "school privatization" process under the DSS. In fact, subsidized schools which least need direct subsidy can easily meet the standard required by the scheme. Those which find it difficult to meet the requirements, like schools in the Bought Place Scheme and private schools in general, are badly in need of direct subsidy. I believe if the Government makes proper arrangement for each individual case the DSS will be a success before long.
Sir, after expounding my views and putting forth my suggestions, I agree, in
principle, to the proposal of the report that matriculation course should be independent. But I object to any restraint imposed either on the system or basic structure of university education. Thus I think flexibility should be given to tertiary institutions with regard to the issue of entrance points and let them decide according to their own needs. Secondly, I support the DSS but there should be a balanced development between Government and private schools. At the same time, the DSS should provide fair chances of schooling to all Hong Kong students.
Sir with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Sir, the Education Commission Report No. 3 has caused concern and reaction from the education profession and interested parties since its publication. Views are divided but backed by their respective arguments. The authorities concerned should give careful consideration and weigh the pros and cons before making a final decision.
Being a representative of the commercial sector and also a person involved in the building and construction as well as various other industries, I would like to make some comments from the point of view of the industrial and commercial sectors. What we need, apart from the graduates of tertiary institutions, are a substantial number of secondary school leavers as field workers in various trades. There is a serious shortage of graduates at the tertiary level at present. The number of
graduates from our tertiary institutions cannot meet the demand of the labour market, bearing in mind that the brain drain problem has become more serious recently. There is hence an urgent need to speed up training in order to fill the gap. I therefore think that the solutions to the problem are, firstly, to increase the intake level of tertiary institutions and, secondly, to raise the educational standard of our secondary school students.
With this in mind, I support that all matriculation courses run by secondary schools should adopt a two-year course structure just like our present system of Form VI and Form VII classes. All tertiary institutions in the territory should admit students at a common entry point (that is, upon completion of Form VII) through a joint admission procedure on the basis of the preferences and academic results of the candidates. The merit of such a system is that the present discrepancies arising from the admission systems operated by the two universities can be avoided. An added
advantage of such two-year matriculation course is that secondary school leavers can benefit by equipping themselves with one more year of schooling even if they cannot enter university. They then enjoy a better chance of meeting the demand for graduates at that level. Students can also build up a more concrete foundation for themselves if they wish to pursue studies at the Open Learning Institute in future.
As for the question of the length of first degree courses -- whether they should be three-year or four-year courses -- it is obvious that a shorter course length will help expedite the training of qualified personnel and reduce government expenditure on university education. But what really counts is the quality of the students
admitted which, in turn, depends upon the education at the secondary or even primary levels. On the other hand, the autonomy of the universities should be respected. Therefore, in my opinion, the length of first degree courses for certain subjects can be handled with flexibility as recommended in the report. A credit unit system may perhaps be introduced to supplement the said recommendation.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. HUI: Sir, the section of the Education Commission Report No. 3 which deals with the long-standing problem of private secondary schools in Hong Kong, has triggered off much controversy. Criticisms centre upon the proposed Direct Subsidy Scheme, which despite its good intentions, carries with it practical difficulties that negate its advantages. I personally welcome the attempt by the commission to answer the need for improving standards in our secondary schools. However, the question: "How to go about it?" remains.
The introduction of the nine-year compulsory education with its attendant evils, highlighting slow progress and lowering of standards in secondary schools, has given rise to the increasing demand by parents for better education for their children. The proposed Direct Subsidy Scheme, in allowing parents to purchase higher quality schooling not only fulfils a growing social need, but also provides incentive to educational development through more freedom given to the secondary schools in
respect of fee charging, students recruitment and curriculum setting. Indeed, the Direct Subsidy Scheme offers opportunities for schools, which all along came under government control, to exercise self-discipline, pursue inspired dynamism and develop creative potentials, altogether conducive to the overall improvement of secondary education in Hong Kong.
As for the private schools, the promise for those qualified to be put on par with aided schools serves as a stimulus to reforms. The much needed financial assistance from Government will instil private schools with confidence and enthusiasm to actively upgrade their standards, thus achieving healthy competition between the public and private sectors. For the more enterprising private schools, the scheme offers a chance to turn over a new leaf. Furthermore, the scheme also falls in line with the present trend of decentralization of social services.
Sir, but there are problems. By allowing schools to charge their own fees, the Direct Subsidy Scheme gives rise to criticisms directed towards some aided schools, in particular the well-known, prestigious schools. Their freedom to charge higher fees, critics claim, would not only bring about discrimination against students from low-income families, but would also violate the principle that government aid is only given to non-profit-making schools. Another criticism is launched at schools'
freedom to choose their own students which could upset the Secondary School Place Allocation system, resulting in a return of elitism in our secondary education. The discretion given to schools to decide on their curriculum also poses a threat to a balanced education aimed at the total development of students, while decreased
government control would undermine the public accountability of our secondary schools.
On the other hand, our private schools, for many years despised, undernourished and ailing, have been languishing in a way perhaps unknown in other parts of the world. Crippled by the vicious cycle of poor reputation -- undesirable students -- declining performance, it is difficult to envisage how private schools could emulate their counterparts in the public sector and efficiently upgrade their standards within the fixed time limit using limited private resources. Given that only 10 non
profit-making private schools have been accepted for the Bought Place Scheme, it is estimated that only one third of the existing 67 private schools will qualify for the standards of school premises set by the Direct Subsidy Scheme. Indeed, there is some truth in the allegation that the Direct Subsidy Scheme is an "immigration policy" designed for the better-off private schools at the expense of the low quality ones which will eventually be phased out. For the role they had played when the nine-year compulsory education was introduced back in 1978, Sir, private schools deserve a better deal.
Sir, the privatization of secondary schools is a significant issue with ominous
implications that must be handled with extreme care. As such, I have much reservation for the Administration to proceed with the Direct Subsidy Scheme. Here, I would urge the Administration to provide more detailed information on the proposed scheme, spelling out the exact degree of autonomy in fee charging, student selection and curriculum design to be allowed for secondary schools. The scheme, as it now stands is subject to abuse that may jeopardize our secondary schools system.
I shall now turn to talk briefly on the subject of tertiary education and university admission system. I personally support a six-year secondary schools system followed by a four-year university education for the simple reason that this will relieve examination pressures that are doing insidious harm to our students. Furthermore, a four-year university degree course will bring Hong Kong's tertiary education in line with systems in most overseas countries. While I fully appreciate the arguments for retaining the existing sixth form system, I tend to believe that a broad education tailored to the all round development of secondary school graduates should begin with the university.
Thus, it remains for the education authorities to review and design the secondary schools curriculum in accordance with the A-level syllabus and the practical requirements of school leavers. Indeed, an overall review of Hong Kong's secondary schools system is deemed most timely. As for the Chinese University which is getting 80 percent out of its intake from the Anglo-Chinese schools, the proposed 6+6+4 system fits in nicely, requiring only minimum administrative changes in its admission requirements. On the other hand, the foundation year proposed by University of Hong Kong which I accept with reservations carries with it technical difficulties. As such, it is necessary for the two universities to abandon their Provisional Acceptance Scheme to make way for a unified entrance system. With due respect to both higher learning institutes, and in light of their historical, academic and political background, I would suggest that the universities continue with their present systems minus the Provisional Acceptance Scheme for an interim period of a few years before a unified admission system and tertiary education programme are implemented.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
4.28 pm
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Members may care at this time to take a short break.
4.47 pm
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Council will resume the debate on Mrs. Selina CHOW's motion.
MR. MARTIN LEE: Sir, I rise to speak on this motion with a high degree of diffidence because education is not an area in which I possess any expertise.
The only experience my wife and I have is many years ago when she had taught for four years in a government secondary school and I had taught for three years in a private secondary school.
But today I believe that I have the right and duty to speak as a consumer, or rather as a father of a young consumer of not quite seven years of age. And in this limited way, I hope I can make some contributions to this debate.
Let me start by saying that it is a thankless task to have to write a report of this kind for no matter how it is written, it will probably attract just as many criticisms. Indeed, I do not think that there is any person in Hong Kong who is so bold as to think that he or she can come up with a different report covering the same issues which will be accepted by everybody in Hong Kong. And this can be demonstrated by the fact that some interested and concerned groups have taken diametrically
opposite views on some key issues. And after hearing them, I cannot in all honesty say that anyone is wrong. For they all seem to be so reasonable. But each group only speaks for a sector of the community, and there is bound to be much conflict of interest.
Sir, what I propose to do therefore is to make some general observations, and leave the specifics to my honourable colleagues who are much more knowledgeable than I in this field.
Sir, the Administration has assured the OMELCO ad hoc group that it will not dictate to any tertiary institution to have a three-year or a four-year degree course, but that each institution is free to decide on the length of their courses. This is indeed consistent with paragraph 3.30 of the report. But funding is a totally separate matter, for paragraph 3.50 clearly states: "The University and
Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC) would continue to use its own academic and financial criteria to judge individual cases in the light of Government policy
prevailing at the time." And so, if the University of Hong Kong (HKU) were to approach the UPGC for funds for a four-year degree course, but if the prevailing government policy was that it should be a three-year course, then the UPGC would only grant funds for three years. Thus, our tertiary institutions do not enjoy real freedom in
deciding on the length of their courses. Or put in another way: the Government gives the academic freedom to the tertiary institutions with one hand, and takes it back with the other.
Sir, I cannot help but feel that the great debate on this issue can best be described as quality versus quantity. In paragraph 160 of the Governor's policy speech, he made the point that we need to produce more university graduates "to fill professional and managerial positions" and "to replace those who emigrate". And in paragraph 163 of his speech he referred to "the clear recommendation" of the Education Commission that "where more resources for tertiary institutions are available, the first priority should be to increase the number of students entering tertiary education each year". In other words, quantity before quality.
But we know that because of the "brain drain", we are losing many experienced people occupying professional and managerial ranks. We therefore need to replace them with suitable young people of a high calibre. And we need both quantity and quality; and if necessary, we must be prepared to spend more money.
Sir, we have been warned by the University of Hong Kong in no uncertain terms that unless it be allowed to extend its undergraduate course to a four-year one, it fears that it will not be able to produce graduates of the right standard. Likewise, we have been warned by the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) in equally strong terms that the quality of its graduates will suffer if the length of its undergraduate course be reduced to three years after a two-year matriculation course. Sir, to adopt a policy of churning out a greater number of university graduates of a lower calibre is simply not the right way to solve the problem.
Sir, the present system of education in Hong Kong is too much linked to the British system. There is good reason for this so long as Hong Kong remains a British territory. But our colonial days are numbered. And it is time for us to attach much more weight to the fact that many more of our students are studying in universities in Canada and the United States than in British universities.
Sir, I agree with the main recommendation in the report that there should be a
common point of admission into all tertiary institutions, and I expect to see a consensus on this. Indeed both the HKU and the CUHK agree that there should be a common point of admission for their entrants.
Sir, as to the controversial issue of whether the best model is 3+3+4, or 5+1+4, or 4+2+4, or 5+2+3, I have heard various interested and concerned groups argue for different models, all with logic and reason. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages, and there can be no perfect model which pleases everyone. But in coming to a decision on this matter, I believe that we should attach great weight to the wishes of the tertiary institutions themselves. But the trouble is that there is no consensus among them. For instance, the HKU and CUHK favour 5+1+4 (the CUHK and possibly also the HKU ultimately wishing to have 3+3+4) while the Hong Kong Polytechnic and City Polytechnic of Hong Kong favour 5+2+3. In trying to reconcile their differences, we must acknowledge that their roles are not necessarily the same. For a university student is expected to be trained to be independent and analytical and to acquire a broader spectrum of knowledge; whereas a student in a polytechnic is expected to amass the necessary "know-how" in a relatively shorter training programme. In accepting a common point of admission for all our existing tertiary institutions, I support the system favoured by the two universities, namely, 5+1+4. As to the two polytechnics, they can adjust the lengths of their courses in the light of the proposed one-year matriculation course.
Sir, I appreciate that the proposed system of 5+1+4 may cost the tax-payer more money. But we must remember that we are talking here about an investment in the future of Hong Kong -- not for the short term -- but for 20 years and more from now. For we are losing people of good quality now; and we must replace them with people of good quality. Or in the language of head-hunters: "a head for a head". After all, it has been said repeatedly that our biggest asset is our people and we have always prided ourselves in the services that we are able to provide. How, then, can we afford to see the quality of our university graduates go down?
Sir, our students are "spoon-fed" at school and they learn by rote. Further, too many of our students have private tutors to coach them at home. Surely this is wrong. And there seem to be a number of reasons for it: an unsatisfactorily high students to teacher ratio, a too narrow and rigid curriculum, unimaginative teaching methods, and low standard of our teachers partly due to insufficient refresher courses.
To rectify all these defects will cost a lot of money; but I suggest that we should make a start soon.
Sir, there is a very major problem in education faced by many countries in the world caused by the television. For with the advent of television dawns a new era and a new culture. People read much less than before, particularly students. Hence, the drop in the standard of the written language, not just in Hong Kong, but also in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and many other countries. But the problem is much more acute here in Hong Kong than elsewhere. For a large proportion of our people live in very small flats; and practically every home is equipped with a coloured television set, which is switched on in the morning and will only be switched off by the last person before going to bed. And while the television is on, everybody at home watches it, from grandma to little Tommy. We are told that our children spend an average of four to five hours a day watching television; and when they reach the age of 18 years they will have watched about 300 000 television commercials. Thus, the effect of television on our children is tremendous. And yet we do not have any well co-ordinated body looking into this most important aspect of the life of our students. We have the Broadcasting Authority which controls
television programmes, and it seeks to protect our young from too much sex or violence. We have the Educational Television Section of the Education Department responsible for the provision of educational television programmes for our schools. But there is no government authority or department charged with the overall responsibility of studying the impact of television on our young and of making the requisite
recommendations. What we need is a high-powered commission consisting of high ranking officials from all relevant government departments and experts in education, child psychology, social work, and in the television field, as well as parents and other concerned persons, to look into these unknown areas which affect the lives of all our children.
Sir, in conclusion, we must realize that our future depends on our young people; and that we must not allow monetary considerations to hamper our desire to improve our education system. For we need a new breed of young people to face the uncertainties of the future -- young people who have confidence in themselves and who are wholly committed to the future of Hong Kong. Sir, it is our duty to equip them adequately with a good and meaningful education before setting them out on their journey and say "Godspeed!"
MR. NGAI (in Cantonese): Sir, over these years, the education system in Hong Kong has been a subject of widespread public criticism, and there are often more adverse
comments than applause. What then are the inadequacies of our education system? Where does the real problem lie? What are the effective solutions to these problems? In my capacity as a member from the industrial and commercial sector, I wish to express my views on some proposals made in the Education Commission Report No. 3.
As I see it, I believe the gravest weakness of our education system lies in its being too "nationalized". The Government has exclusive control over the provision of education service and directly involved or intervened in the school administration of most schools. Besides, financial resources are also under government control, thus restraining schools from having a free hand in their development. As far as the school administration, admission of students, teaching methods and examinations are
concerned, they are subject to a standardized system. Under such circumstances, schools are denied of any chances to implement creative teaching methods nor new concepts in education. As a result, a system which aimed at culturing high calibre personnel has deteriorated into a system that nips talents in the bud. Hence, I believe that in order to improve the quality of our education system, the first step is to introduce privatization in schools by stages. Only by means of privatization and by offering choices to parents can schools be improved in their teaching methods, teaching aids as well as school administration through healthy competitions. Moreover, the Direct Subsidy Scheme will encourage those schools which are not yet eligible to join to make greater efforts in improving their academic standard. In the long term the DSS will serve to bring about better academic quality to our education system as a whole. I therefore consider that the DSS proposed by Education Commission is an appropriate step forward.
As for the argument that elitism will emerge through the scheme, I hold the view that there are good reasons to support the proposed scheme, if it really proves to be effective in culturing more outstanding elite. In the first place, people with different kinds of talents are required to assume various responsibilities in the community; such phenomenon is only natural in the course of social development. The so-called "elite" are honoured with such title because our community recognizes their achievement. They are still part of our society. Assuming that everyone in our society are mediocre in their mentality, who would take a leading role in our social
development? Who is going to introduce new concepts or inventions to enhance the general living standard? Besides, we are living in a free society, under the principles of free market and freedom of choices, for what reason should we deprive the freedom of choices from those parents who can afford to give their children a better education? If someone chooses to order steak, why should they be forced to
have hamburgers everyday? Some people refute that the less affluent may be denied the kind of education provided by the prestigious schools. In my opinion, it is not necessarily true, other than charging higher tuition fees, the so-called "prestigious" schools will give equal weight to the overall academic performance of their students. Thus, besides selecting students from well-off families, these schools will provide scholarships or free places so as to attract talented or academically outstanding students from poor families to keep up the reputation of their schools. If the DSS can be further promoted and the Government is prepared to introduce privatization in our education system, more and more schools will be motivated to strive for improvement and development. In other words, more schools will be able to offer places that provide quality education. The prestigious schools will not be the only schools to provide such places. All students, irrespective of their family background, may have access to these schools. Talents and the poor are not mutually exclusive and the rich are not necessarily talented for many talents do come from poor families.
Sir, as I come from the industrial and commercial sector, I wish to see that those students who are not prepared to enter university may leave school with a better developed education standard. I support the proposal of a unified entry point which should be adopted after two years of sixth form education. I think that the
matriculation curriculum should not only be geared towards preparing students for tertiary education; it should also aim at preparing our matriculants for their future career if their attempt to enter university become unsuccessful. The two-year sixth form course is more preferable. During these two years, whilst students may have more time to acquire knowledge through studying as well as developing their power to think independently and analytically, they can also acquire training in their
organizational abilities when participating in extra-curricula activities. All these experiences will be useful in their future careers.
On the contrary, the syllabus for the one-year sixth form course is only designed for the needs of university entrance examination. The course is so tightly scheduled that hardly can the real potentials of students be explored. Should they fail to be admitted by the university, this year of schooling will be in vain, because most of the employers and tertiary institutions refuse to recognize the results attained in the Hong Kong Higher Level Examination; only the results obtained in the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination after the two-year Form VI course are recognized. Thus, even if these graduates of the two-year Form VI course fail to enter university, their results in the examination will also be recognized by professional bodies, thereby
matriculants may still have a chance to further their study to acquire a higher qualification.
Sir, as a member of the industrial and commercial sector, surely it is my hope that our education system will be able to provide us with a class of outstanding personnel who, apart from their fundamental knowledge, are also equipped with discerning power and an analytical mind, adaptable to changing circumstances and competent in problem solving, thereby they are well-prepared to work in this ever changing society. I therefore hold the view that our education system should not stick to conventions; instead, adjustments ought to be made to cope with the demands of our society. I am pleased to find that Education Commission Report No. 3 has offered relevant suggestions in the light of the weaknesses of our education system, so as to allow more freedom in the progress of our education system to cope with the long-term development of our free economy.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, the Education Commission Report No. 3 is supposed to be a consultative document, but judging from the course of action described below, it appears that the Administration is already prepared to implement the recommendations of the report arbitrarily. There is not much sincerity in conducting the consultation exercise.
Firstly, just two weeks before the publication of the report on 30 May this year, a decision was made by the Executive Council that a "5+2" system would be adopted in secondary and matriculation education. The systems of tertiary, matriculation and secondary education are closely related. A prior decision on the systems of secondary and matriculation education would produce a directive and restraining effect on any later discussions on the system of tertiary education, thus making the
recommendations in the report the only way out. Why did the Executive Council have to make such a decision so hastily? Why did the Administration not wait till the completion of this consultation exercise before making a decision on secondary and matriculation education, and consider the issue together with the system of tertiary education before arriving at an overall decision?
Secondly, the consultation period was initially limited to only two months and it just happened to fall on the summer vacation. It appears that there has never been
a consultation exercise that would last so short on such an important issue. Therefore, one cannot help but wonder if it was an intended surprise attack on the education sector.
Thirdly, even before the termination of the consultation period, the Administration has already set up two working groups and they have commenced their work. One of the working groups is to study and work out the syllabus for the Intermediate Level Examination, while the other one is to consider and draw up substantive plans for the implementation of the Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS). With particular regard to the DSS, is it true that the Administration has already decided to accept the recommendations on this scheme? If not, why is the Administration so eager to study and draw up substantive implementation plans in such a hurry?
Fourthly, contrary to the usual practice that government officials would not make comments during the consultation period, they went everywhere to promote the recommendations in the report, making defence and persuasion wherever necessary.
Is it true that the Administration is already prepared to implement the recommendations in the report arbitrarily and therefore lacks sincerity in the consultation exercise? So long as the final decision has yet to be made, I will not draw any hasty conclusion either. All fellow citizens of Hong Kong, let us wait and see.
The critical part in the recommendations of the report is that a three-year British tertiary education system would be implemented arbitrarily, resulting in a "5+2+3" structure in our education system.
Tertiary education is the foremost part of the whole education system, just like the head of a human being. There is a Chinese saying that the whole body would be affected just by pulling one filament of one's hair not to say surgical operations on the head. We have to carry out medical examination of the whole body beforehand. Likewise the system of tertiary education should be examined on account of the
findings of an overall review of our education system. Such a review would generally bring into light the following problems:
On tertiary education
Firstly, very keen competition has resulted because of inadequate places.
Secondly, the lack of a common admission point has given rise to confusion and disruption in secondary education.
Thirdly, the decline of learning ability and linguistic proficiency among students have created difficulties in teaching.
Fourthly, owing to developments in academic studies, the results of specialization of subjects as well as the emergence of many "marginal subjects," liberal education needs to be strengthened.
On matriculation education
Firstly, there are too many examinations during the two years of matriculation course, including the Higher Level Examination, Advanced Level Examination and London University General Certificate of Education Examination. The pressure is too great and teaching time is insufficient.
Secondly, the curriculum is too narrow. Students who fail to enter the universities will find little benefit from what they have learned in matriculation course when they take up employment.
Thirdly, it would be difficult to attain the five objectives in education owing to the pressure from examinations and the curriculum.
Fourthly, the dual purposes of matriculation education, one being "to prepare for entrance to universities" and the other "to prepare for employment in the community", contradict each other and are mutually disruptive.
Fifthly, there has been a great outflow of Form VII students and this is a wastage of resources.
On secondary education
Firstly, most schools are grammar schools. The curricula for the senior classes in these schools are not appropriate in developing the academic ability and inclination of many students who have completed a nine-year free education. Thus
difficulties arise between the teachers and the students.
Secondly, the curricula of senior classes in grammar schools are not in line with the demand for large number of lower and middle level technicians to cope with economic development in the community.
Thirdly, a two-year structure for senior secondary school is inadequate because in practice the teaching time is only limited to one and a half years. There is no way to give effect to civic or moral education. In addition, the demand for new subjects (such as computer science) has made it difficult to strike a balance between the teaching programme and the curricula.
Fourthly, the use of English as the major medium of instruction has become a hindrance to the students in acquiring knowledge. Bilingualism has caused disruption. The standard of both languages has been lowered as a result.
The recommendations for a "5+2+3" system as put forward in the report have not been made with the above problems in mind, thus they fail to provide solutions to most of the problems.
On account of a thorough review of our education system as well as with a view to tackling the above problems, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union has proposed the following approach in formulating reforms for our education system: a common admission point for enrollment to tertiary institutions in the short run so as to relieve the pressure of examinations at matriculation level; and in the long run, a unified system for secondary education with diversification in the curriculum to cater for differences in academic abilities and inclinations among students so as to meet the changing demands of the community resulting from economic development and a joint admission procedure for all tertiary institutions to remove confusion at matriculation level and eliminate disruption to secondary education.
On this approach, we would like to put forth the following suggestions which should be introduced by two stages, that is, the transitional plan to be carried out during the first stage and the final plan to be implemented during the second stage.
The details of the transitional plan for the first stage are as follows: The existing two systems of secondary education can remain as they are at this stage, that is, the "5+2" system and the "5+1" system co-exist. A joint admission procedure
for tertiary education as proposed by HKU and CUHK should be introduced to enroll students at Form VI level, while the post-secondary colleges can take account of the applicants' results in Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination, school results in Form VI, participation in extracurricular activities, comments by the school as well as performance in the interview in selecting students.
During the transitional period, the following steps should be taken in order to facilitate the final plan: a three-year junior secondary curriculum as well as a three-year senior secondary curriculum should be designed. Appropriate textbooks should be published. A school leaving examination recognized both by the Government and overseas authorities should be set up for senior secondary students. In order to promote diversification in secondary schools, preparation should be made regarding school facilities, teaching staff and so on. When all these condition are in place,
we can move from the transitional period to the final stage.
The details of the final plan for the second stage are as follows: A six-year secondary education and four-year tertiary education system should be introduced. To be concise, there should be three years for junior secondary education. After nine years of free education, students should be allocated to classes of different streams (such as arts, science, engineering and commerce) in grammar schools or to other types of schools according to their abilities and inclinations through the process of
counseling. Details of specific measures for the allocation system could be worked out after careful deliberation. But there is one point that we have to pay special attention. Students allocated to non-grammar schools, just like their counterparts in grammar schools, should also sit for the same examination recognized by the
Government and the overseas authorities after studying three years in the senior secondary classes. The results of this examination will help students in making decisions on further education, vocational training or employment. All tertiary
institutions should adopt a joint admission procedure to enroll students according to their results in the said examination. All degree courses should be four years. Professional disciplines and different departments or faculties can decide the duration of their courses separately according to their actual circumstances.
Many problems of the existing education system are in fact handed from history, our education system has never undergone thorough treatment. All the past solutions were but expedient measures. The problems re-activate soon after piecemeal treatments. We know that we cannot solve all the problems in one battle because more haste would mean less speed. We must first set our final targets and achieve them step by step.
Our plans should be far-sighted and they have to be carried out steadily. Next, I would like to talk about the future of private schools in Hong Kong.
In the report, the crucial part of the proposals on the future of private schools in Hong Kong lies in the Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS). The essence of this scheme is privatization of subsidized schools, using public money to set up and lend support to aristocratic schools under the name of private schools, reducing our policy of universal education to class-oriented elitism.
It has been the usual practice of the Government to discriminate and eliminate private schools. Why does the Administration suddenly show concern for the future of private schools and stress the building up of a sound private school system? Annex H of the report -- "Conclusions of the Board of Education in 1980 discussion of private schools" -- carries a number of comments which were once outcries from many people. Previously, the Administration turned a deaf ear to these outcries. These suggestions have been ignored and shelved for eight years. What is the rationale for digging them up now as cultural relics?
The report proposes implementation of the Direct Subsidy Scheme next year. What a hurry! Is time running short? May I ask how many private schools do we have now? How long will they take to acquire the necessary standard for joining the scheme? Actually, the scheme only opens its door to the existing prestigious subsidized
schools. Even if the existing private schools struggle to acquire the necessary standard, there may not be any more places for them by then or they may be eliminated in the course of competition as some other prestigious subsidized schools may have got help and risen to a more advantageous position under the privatization scheme. What is the logic behind the proposal that the Direct Subsidy Scheme is not restricted to the existing private schools? Why can the implementation of the scheme not be deferred till the year 2000 when the Administration will have ceased to buy places from private schools?
The so-called "the future of private schools in Hong Kong" and the so-called "Direct Subsidy Scheme", similar to blankets used by conjurers to shield off the vision of the audience, aim at converting our policy of universal education to that of class-oriented elitism and turning existing prestigious subsidized schools into aristocratic schools at the expense of public money.
The Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union firmly opposes such a Direct Subsidy Scheme since it violates the principle of social equality, hinders educational development and jeopardizes the interests of teachers.
Under the Direct Subsidy Scheme, our policy of universal education will be reduced to class-oriented elitism, a version much worse than that of mere elitism in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time since elitism might be excused, conditions then were not ripe for universal education. Ambitions and diligent students from grass-root level might still be admitted to better secondary schools through outstanding
academic results. Yet from now on, they will be debarred from these schools or even tertiary education because of their financial position, family background and social connections. Children after completing their primary schooling will be on a wild goose chase together with their parents in looking for schools. Their efforts are usually futile, leaving them frustrated. Education carries its social function of enabling social mobility. Students from the lower middle strata may climb up the social ladder to become members of the middle class or the professional class. Class-oriented
elitism will destroy this social function. Class polarization will become increasingly acute. It will bring about more social injustice and class contradiction, and thus hamper the stability and harmony in our community.
It is also proposed in the report that the DSS may be extended to cover private primary schools a few years later. The situation will be further aggravated by then. Not only will the existing Secondary School Place Allocation System (SSPA) be affected, the present Primary One Allocation System will also suffer. The ghost of the Secondary School Entrance Examination and Primary One Entrance Examination will once again haunt the mind of our children. The examination-oriented curriculum or the "spoon-fed" education will come into being again.
Nine-year free education has been implemented for ten years. Its quality ought to be improved. But instead of carrying out a thorough and serious review for introducing measures to improve its quality, the Government is now shirking its responsibilities by putting the blame on universal education, saying that they are just the logical results of universal education, in a bid to restore its elitist policy. With the privatization of the existing prestigious schools, a new category of aristocratic schools will come into being. The needs of children from the affluent families will be sufficiently taken care of. Under such circumstances, will the Government still make effort to improve the general quality of nine- year free
education? The nine-year free education system will only deteriorate as time goes by. Students from lower or middle income groups are bound to receive second class education. More than 100 district board members, who have close affiliations with the grass-root level, have already signed up in protest to the DSS.
Moreover, the interests of the teachers will be at stake under the DSS. Any aided school which joins the DSS will become a private school though it is subvented by the Government. Teachers of the DSS schools will become employees of the private sector. Their rights and interests will no longer be safeguarded by the subsidy code. For instance, with one month's notice, teachers may be dismissed at the employers' will without giving any explanation or in accordance with any procedures. In the event of reduction of classes, no arrangement of transfer will be made for teachers. There will be no hard and fast rules in deciding the salary scales and promotion criteria. Everything will have to be decided at the employers' pleasure. Leave entitlements, such as sick leave and maternity leave will be provisions in Employment Ordinance -- one will receive no pay for sick leave lasting three days or less and receive only two-thirds of the salary for sick leave and maternity leave in excess of three days. The accumulation of sick leave will be reduced from 168 days to 120 days. The
establishment of a provident fund scheme will be at the discretion of the employers. Salary scales of the teachers will no longer peg with the Master Pay Scale of the civil servants and annual salary adjustment will become something dispensable. All in all, teachers will be treated as common employees without any safeguard for their rights and benefits. As for those teachers whose monthly salary exceeds $11,500, they will not even be entitled to the minimum safeguards provided under the Employment Ordinance.
The interests of those teachers employed in aided school or Government schools not joining the DSS will also be affected. As most brilliant students will be taken by the subvented aristocratic schools after privatization, most students left for other schools are of low standard. Teaching will become a hard task, let alone the improvement of education quality. Should the number of children at school age
decreases in a certain district, the schools concerned will bear the brunt for the number of classes will be reduced. Besides, as the prestigious schools will look after the needs of students from the upper class and the class-oriented policy of elitism will be in practice, will the Administration bother to care for those schools which only take in inferior students? By that time, the aided and Government schools will be in the same predicament of the present private schools. Will the Administration concerned care to improve the conditions of service of the teachers in those schools?
They will become the forgotten lot.
Some may condemn us as being selfish for opposing the DSS out of personal interests. We are just upholding our reasonable interests. Is it wrong for us to do that? Not only are our interests justifiable, they are compatible with the principle of social equity and are beneficial to the development of our education. Indirectly speaking, these interests are relevant to the interests of the general public. We have no fear for we have strong justifications and are of clear conscience.
If no subsidy and no public funds are involved, no one would object to the establishment of aristocratic private schools. For example, everyone would welcome the spending of public funds in building public housing units to ease the housing problem of the middle and lower strata, but it will be absolutely absurd if public funds are allocated to subsidize the construction of luxurious villas for millionaires. The Government will have strong justifications though only plain and inexpensive meals are provided to relieve the victims of calamities, yet if this kind of relief which ought to be in the form of plain meals is offered in cash as subsidies to the millionaires to buy shark's fin soup to go with their rice as part of their lavish meals, there will definitely be outbreaks of anger.
By combining the proposals regarding tertiary education system and the future of private schools, another scene is readily visible. All brilliant students will be entirely embraced by these subvented aristocratic schools after the implementation of the class-oriented policy of elitism. Furthermore, these students will occupy most of the places in the tertiary institutions and in the long run, fill various key positions in the community. All in all, the elite are products of an education system modeled on the British. Under such circumstances, what political implications will there be upon the future of Hong Kong? What kind of scene will it be?
This report was prepared by the Education Commission behind closed doors. We have no knowledge as to how this report was written. I am only relating the facts to the best of my knowledge.
The Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, since its inauguration in 1973, has been the largest organization among educational groups. Since 1981 it has also been the largest union in Hong Kong. It has more than 38 000 members now, representing over 80% of total numbers of teachers in the territory. I have been the president as well as the representative of the union all along. In 1985, I was elected as a
member of the Legislative Council by an overwhelming majority vote in the functional constituency for the teaching profession. This year my office was returned uncontested. Why have I all the time been excluded from the Education Commission and the Board of Education over the past 10 odd years, and particularly when I was re-elected as Legislative Council member for the teaching profession constituency and my office was returned uncontested this year? Is this reasonable? Is this fair? Is there any functional constituency being treated likewise? Or whether the process of decision-making of the Education Commission and the Board of Education is something that cannot be divulged to over 80% of the teachers and thus we have been denied of representation in that commission? Is there anything which cannot be made known? Though I am a small potato and relatively insignificant, this is not merely a personal matter. Therefore it has been decided in the meeting of the executive committee of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union that we have to strive for a seat so that either a representative of the union or I myself may join the Education Commission and the Board of Education.
Is this very controversial report not a product of the Education Commission's closed door policy? I strongly demand that the recommendations on the structure of tertiary education and the future of private schools be shelved and a round table meeting be held among Government officials, members from the educational sector with real representation and people from various sectors of the community, so as to allow a more detailed study on these two issues and to collate views from various sides, in a bid to identify the best solutions to these problems.
The motion today is for this Council to take note of the report's recommendations in respect of these two issues. It is the obligation of all educational workers in Hong Kong to give due regard to these problems.
Sir, I therefore support the motion.
MRS. TAM (in Cantonese): Sir, before I start, may I declare that I am a member of both the Court and the Council of the University of Hong Kong. But what I am going to say is only my personal opinion.
The Education Commission Report No. 3 which is being debated in this Council today has far-reaching effects on the future development of our education system. The primary object of the report is to review two very important areas in the education
of Hong Kong, namely, the present structure of tertiary education and the future development of private schools. Today, I shall give my opinions on these two issues.
I would deal firstly with the structure of tertiary education. This issue has been the subject of public concern and discussions since the publication of the Education Commission Report No. 3. And these discussions have gradually evolved into heated debates over the question of whether the degree course should last for three or four years and whether the matriculation course should be of one or two years' duration. I think in deciding the structure of our first degree and matriculation courses, we must first of all look at the whole issue of tertiary education in its right perspective and identify the problems which we have to resolve. In my opinion, there are at least two problems that we should tackle without delay. They are: (1) how to broaden the curriculum of the matriculation courses to cater for the need of the great majority of students who are unable to enter tertiary institutions; and (2) how to make better arrangements concerning the timing of matriculation so that the students concerned will not have to suffer tremendous pressure from their studies and examinations caused by the present chaotic system.
In examining these issues, we must bear in mind the following factors:
1. An education structure cannot be established overnight. A long time is needed for the system to take shape, and be recognized locally as well as internationally. Therefore, when considering any changes to our education system, we must adopt measures which will achieve the desired effect with the least disruption to the existing system.
2. Admittedly, the primary objective of educationalists is to enable the greatest number of people to receive as much education as possible. However, with limited resources, we need to ensure an effective distribution and use of funds.
3. In view of the fact that the majority of students taking matriculation courses do not have the opportunity to enter tertiary institution, we must, when designing the structure of tertiary education, take into account the implications on these students.
Based on the above factors, I am of the view that the reform of our tertiary structure should begin with the introduction of a unified admissions system. This will bring an end to the confusions our students are facing as a result of the mixed
system. The common entry point should be set at the end of Form VII so as to retain the two-year matriculation programme with a view to providing better training to the majority of matriculation students who cannot enter tertiary institutions. After all, it is not the spirit of matriculation education to merely prepare students to receive tertiary education, nor is it introduced just for a small minority of students who have a chance to pursue higher studies. Matriculation education should have its own intrinsic value. As for the length of our first degree course, I do not think that a two-year matriculation course must go with a three-year university programme.
Similarly, I do not see the need of linking a one-year sixth form with a four-year first degree course. There is in fact no need to standardize the length of university courses. The course duration should rather be made flexible, depending on the requirement of individual subjects. I suggest the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee should carry out a study as soon as possible to assess the course offered by all the tertiary institutions in order to fix the length of different courses. In future, students of tertiary institutions should be allowed to adopt a credit unit system to complete their courses within a flexible time span.
The second important subject of the report is the future development of private schools. I fully agree with the view of the commission report that the Government has all along failed to develop an overall policy towards private schools, and that the educational benefits of a strong and independent private sector has not been fully recognized. I agree that the faulty Bought Place Scheme should be abolished, and I accept in principle the introduction of the Direct Subsidy Scheme. However, I am also aware of the effects on the overall secondary education of Hong Kong if both private and aided schools are allowed to apply to join the DSS of their own accord.
Under the effect of market forces, the most obvious consequence is that our secondary schools will be even more polarized. We shall find at one end of the scale the so-called "prestigious schools". Being well-established, these schools will benefit immensely from the DSS and will recruit the cream of the students. At other end of the scale are those schools which are excluded from the DSS because of their poor qualifications. These schools will only be able to admit students of an inferior calibre through the allocation scheme administered by the Government. The polarization will be far more serious than that existing under the present allocation system. And such a situation will probably intensify as time goes on.
I am worried that if the market forces are allowed to play such a predominant role, the economic factor will assume a status that is far too important. As a result,
a talented student with outstanding academic achievements may be deprived of the opportunity of entering a good school just because he cannot afford to pay the high school fee. I believe those who are concerned about the development of our young people would not like to see such a state of affairs.
Thus, while I support in principle the spirit of the Direct Subsidy Scheme, I hope that the authorities concerned will take some balancing measures when introducing it. On the one hand, the Government should set a ceiling for the school fee that can be charged by schools participating in the scheme, to ensure that the fees will not be increased to an exorbitantly high level; on the other hand, the authorities concerned should consider asking all secondary schools participating in the scheme to reserve a certain percentage of its places to accommodate those students admitted through the Government allocation system.
I am convinced that education is a long-term task. The authorities concerned should take up this job with immense courage and perseverance. As our private school system and tertiary education structure have long been riddled with faults, we should pluck up courage and introduce appropriate changes at an early date.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. TAM (in Cantonese): Sir, consultation with the public on Education Commission Report No. 3 has just come to an end. The said report mainly touches on two aspects of the education system in Hong Kong, that is, the length of tertiary and secondary education as well as the development of private schools. I wish to put forward my views on the above-mentioned two issues.
The length of tertiary and secondary education is a controversial issue. Different educational parties tend to speak highly of the education programme they propose in a bid to win the support of other people. In the deadlock of such discussion I cannot help doubting the direction our current discussion is heading.
Education is a means of imparting knowledge and ideology from generation to generation. The setting up of schools is for imparting knowledge and ideology to our next generation. We must first have something in mind to impart before deciding on the appropriate form of teaching and the length of courses. From discussion held by various sectors of the community so far, we can come to the conclusion that members
of the public have reservation about the education structure in Hong Kong especially the courses at matriculation level. If we rush to debate on the length of courses before we know for sure what is needed for our next generation, is this tantamount to putting the incidental before the fundamental? Although importance should be
attached to the duration of tertiary and secondary education, the length of education at respective levels should be set in such a manner to enable students to complete the related courses so that students may live up to our society's expectation. Therefore, the discussion on the length of tertiary and secondary education should not be confined to the point at issue, but consideration should also be given to the compatibility between the curricula and the duration of the courses, or even the duration of courses with reference to the kind of curricula the community wants.
In response to the current discussion hereunder are my views on the above points.
Regarding the duration of tertiary education as viewed from the actual situation of our two universities, it is noticed that apart from those courses such as medical science, dental science and architecture which require longer course programmes, the requirements for other disciplines of study vary from one discipline to another in the two universities. The pressure upon students also varies. If we take a mandatory move to unify the length of the degree courses, this will either put students under greater stress or result in a waste of time. Therefore, I believe the best approach in solving the problem of the length of tertiary education is for the relevant
departments or faculties of various tertiary institutions to take account of their individual needs and to consult the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee through the authorities of their respective institution before reaching any agreement on the length of their courses. It is not necessary for us to set a guideline of a three-year period (to be lengthened if necessary) to be the basic duration of courses for the universities as mentioned in Report No. 3; nor do we need to require the length of courses for the same discipline offered by different institutions to be the same. Since there are different educational requirements for students taking different courses in different institutions, to set a general guideline arbitrarily for the period of training in individual institutions or for the length of the courses carries no realistic meaning. Some people may think that the differences in the length of courses among different tertiary institutions may lead to a waste of resources. In my opinion, to standardize the length of training for different tertiary institutions cannot guarantee that the resources will not be wasted. The basic approach to the problem is to monitor the design and the running of the courses.
Basically I have the same attitude towards the issue of the length of secondary education. The public generally feel that there are a lot of inadequacies in the existing secondary school curriculum, especially the curriculum at matriculation level, and therefore it is proposed that the curriculum be diversified. It is unwise for us to arbitrarily fix the length of secondary education before we have considered in depth the implication of diversification of subjects to be learned. Of course, the design of secondary school curriculum is affected by other factors, but the main consideration is the criteria of admissions laid down by the tertiary institutions. If the criteria of admissions of the tertiary institutions still emphasize
outstanding academic results, then the chance of successfully implementing the diversification of secondary school curriculum will be greatly reduced. Bearing in mind our aspirations for secondary school education through the introduction of diversified subjects in the curriculum, if we wish to effectively revamp the secondary education structure, the design of the curriculum should be geared to the requirements set for students, especially new students, by various tertiary institutions through consultation. The secondary school curriculum can then be identified, upon which the secondary school structure will be determined and even the entry point of various tertiary institution may be set.
It is regrettable that some of the comments made during the current discussion are based on the conclusion of the Education Commission Report No. 2, thus giving favourable consideration to the 5+2 system, whereas those with pre-emptive views about the merits of a four-year tertiary education system think that secondary schools should adopt the 3+3 system. There are few who keep their heads in examining the requirements of tertiary and secondary education in order to ensure co-ordination. I believe that the best approach in solving the problem lies in that direction.
In short, rational and thorough discussions on the educational development in Hong Kong are greatly conducive to ironing out the problems of an "entry point" and admission criteria and even the issue of secondary school structure. Regrettably, the Education Commission has failed to achieve this, nor have the related discussions. Furthermore, no matter who wins in the current discussion on the lengths of courses in our education structure, I really do not want to see that under the constraint of fixed lengths of courses in the education structure in future, we shall have to discuss what our next generation need. I think that this is a very peculiar way to consider our education policy.
Apart from tertiary and secondary education, the Education Commission Report No.
3 also deals with the private school issue. But if the report is written to tackle the existing problems of the private schools as said, we need not take all the troubles to scrutinize the Direct Subsidy Scheme. The private school system has made its presence felt in overseas countries, but this does not mean that we should follow suit. We may also be proud of our subsidized school system. There is no absolute logical relationship between "privatisation"and "diversification". If the Bought Place Scheme is in doubt, we can phase out the scheme and convert the private schools into subsidized schools, or build more subsidized schools. Education Commission's proposal for market-oriented education services seems to carry an implicit negation of the schools in the public sector, and further implies a disapproval of the quality of secondary education as a whole. Could the Education Commission's proposal for introducing the market mechanism in the field of education solve the problems of the
above-mentioned negations? Apparently the Education Commission does not give a definite answer.
Actually, many people have already noticed that the quality of education varies greatly among different secondary schools. They believe it is the result of undue emphasis on administrative and financial control by Government in the past so much so that the need of public monitoring has been neglected. Since educational staff in schools, those who play a decisive role in classrooms and school activities, are always bound by government directions, they fail to meet the demand of society and students. This impedes improvement to the quality of education. Students and parents who are directly affected by the kind of educational services they get should
therefore be entrusted with greater monitoring powers to promote the quality of education. However, whether the proposed Direct Subsidy Scheme can achieve this goal remains a matter to be examined.
Apart from this, the scheme touches on the issue of social equality. In implementing our social policies, we should bear in mind the way and means to offer assistance to the lower strata of society. If Government introduces the Direct Subsidy Scheme students from families of the lower strata may have to pay very expensive fees if they want to receive quality education. The defect of this scheme is that Government will reduce its subsidy in view of schools increasing their tuition fees, instead of a means-tested approach in which families which become more affluent will
receive less subsidies. This no doubt will create an anomaly in that students from poor families will be less accessible to subsidies than their counterparts from wealthy families.
Once a new policy is introduced, there will be a re-distribution of social resources among different social sectors. The Government has provided subsidized schools with considerable subsidies. If the Direct Subsidy Scheme is really implemented, subsidized schools may opt for private schools status. These schools may then make use of the capital investment provided by the Government to their schools in the past to make profits. It will certainly be contrary to the principle of social equality if profits thus generated all go to the pocket of the school councils.
Besides, the report has always emphasized on improvement to the conditions of the private schools. However, due to past intervention from the Government, private schools only manage to survive on very poor resources. They will have to close down in the long run if they have to face competition immediately. Although the report states that assistance should be provided for private schools to help them reach a certain level, it is regrettable the measures concerned have not been clearly
explained.
In conclusion, the Direct Subsidy Scheme is far from adequate in many aspects. Even if the scheme really aims at improving the quality of education, it has not considered the role of the government schools. The commission has to work out some other approaches to solve the problem; otherwise, an overall solution is still
pending. I, therefore, hope that the commission will conduct an overall review to examine the quality aspect of education in Hong Kong so as to come up with some more effective measures.
Sir, the report is obviously inadequate in a number of issues, especially the depth and scope of the analyses it offers. I believe if the commission will further discuss and examine the points raised in the report, it will contribute more to the promotion of educational developments.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
DR. TSE: Sir, I would like to confine my remarks today to the issue of the sixth form education and the length of degree courses. But before I begin, I would like to remind my honourable colleagues Mr. Stephen CHEONG and Mr. Martin LEE that besides the three universities and the two polytechnics, there is a Baptist College in Hong Kong which is doing mostly degree work, and I would like to declare my interest as the President
of the Baptist College.
I am not a trained educational theorist. My views are therefore based primarily on the empirical findings at Hong Kong Baptist College.
Without going into historical details, I can categorically say that we have tried just about every combination of course lengths between the sixth form and the tertiary courses at Baptist College in the last twenty years. We have offered a one-year course specifically designed to prepare school leavers for a four-year post-secondary education. We have tried a five-year continuous programme, and allowed students to complete it in four years time by making use of summer studies. We have given A-Level students credit for some appropriate subjects so that they could complete a four-year course in three years' time. We have experimented with alternatives to the
conventional A-Level course, including the International Baccalaureate. In 1979, we even chopped up the five-year programme into 2+2+1 year segments as a requirement of the Government, in return for financial subsidy for the 2+2 years portions.
Happily, since we became a publicly funded tertiary institution in 1984, we have returned to "a life of simplicity" by running mostly three-year courses on a credit unit basis at the post A-Level, and have by now succeeded in converting about 88% of them into degree courses at the United Kingdom university honours degree standard through the system of external validation by the United Kingdom Council for National Academic Awards.
After having gone through all these experiments, I can honestly say that every system we have tried has its strengths and weaknesses, even the infamous 2+2+1. Therefore the choice of options listed in the Education Commission Report No. 3 is not really the choice between right and wrong or good and evil. For example, I can readily identify myself with the philosophy of education inherent in a four-year degree course, but at the same time treasure the rigour of the British three-year degree. However, from a system's point of view, I do find it difficult to graft a four-year degree onto a five-year secondary school system on account of the one year gap in between. Indeed, it is most difficult to design a one-year course which is educationally satisfactory to fill that gap. Therefore, if the secondary school system is to remain unchanged, I would prefer a two-year sixth form which should then be modified to fit into the present trend in degree education.
By "present trend in degree education", I have in mind the broadened curriculum
which both the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong have advocated, and to which the Hong Kong Baptist College has subscribed. Our experience has shown that given the bilingual nature of our tertiary system, if we want to keep the rigour and depth of the British honours degree in a broader curriculum design, more teaching time would be required than a conventional three-year schedule can provide. This view has been time and again confirmed by the United Kingdom's Council of National Academic Awards teams which have come to validate our degree courses. They agreed that our proposed course contents were necessary to provide for proper depth and breadth, but pointed out that our teaching schedule was too tight to bring about the full benefits of degree education. Partly prompted by the CNAA comments, the Baptist College proposed to the UPGC more than two years ago that additional resources be provided to allow the institution to introduce a summer teaching
programme. It has been estimated that two summer terms of eight weeks duration each should give sufficient added teaching time to a three-year course, yet with plenty of summer holidays left over for other activities. The No. 3 report has suggested a similar idea. But I would propose that the additional resources be given to the institutions as part of the regular budget provision, and not something to be
contended for and justified by the institutions as special needs arise.
If this proposal is accepted, institutions would gain the equivalent of one half of an academic year's teaching time within the time span of a three-year course. There would be no need for campus capital expansion to accommodate the proposal. Only the existing very costly facilities of the tertiary institutions would be more
efficiently utilized during the long summers. Most importantly, the properly resourced additional teaching time would go a long way towards preserving the ideal of liberal education without sacrificing the rigour and strength of the honours degree. It is true that with this arrangement all institutions would have to change some of their traditional ways of doing things. This may seem to be a hardship, but we must acknowledge that there are indeed many constraints in real life which we all must adjust to. To me, when all is said and done, it is far more important to preserve the spirit and substance of our educational goals than to cling to traditions and forms.
Our educational system has been plagued for far too long a time by the confusion and undue pressures caused by the different entry levels to degree education. Every year tens of thousands of our young people waste their valuable time and energy trying to manoeuvre their way through our complicated admissions systems, when they are at the peak of their learning potentials and should be spending their time in more
meaningful learning experiences. For the sake of these young people, let us not prolong this anomaly by arguing endlessly and emotively. We are not going to have winner and loser on this issue. If we win, we win as a community; if we loss, the loss is also to the community to which all of us belong. Therefore we should take this opportunity to unite together to overcome this anomaly, so that together we can turn our attention and energy to the quality improvement of our total educational network in a systematic way, from kindergarten right through degree level education.
With these remarks, Sir, I support the motion.
6.02 pm
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: It is now past six o'clock and under Standing Order 8(2) this Council should now adjourn.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, with your consent, I move that Standing Order 8(2) should be suspended so as to allow the Council's business this afternoon to be concluded.
Question proposed, put and agreed to.
MR. PAUL CHENG: Sir, thank you for allowing me to jump the queue to catch a flight this evening. Since some of my colleagues are making declaration of interest, I would like just to first declare that I am only a partial product of the Hong Kong education system, having left Hong Kong right after Form V school leaving and went straight into a four-year university curriculum in the United States. The now highly
controversial Education Commission Report No. 3 has prompted intense and emotional debate throughout a wide spectrum of the Hong Kong community. This is because we all realize Hong Kong's future depends largely on the only real resource it has, that is, people of skill. Therefore, focus must be on developing quality leaders rather than on quantity. Whilst no one will disagree with increasing the number of places at tertiary institutions, we must not sacrifice the standards just to increase the throughput. This is a matter of cost consideration and the Government should treat education as a priority by allocating more funds to education. In fact, measured as a percentage of GDP or GNP, we have apparently been spending at levels well below other countries.
I have talked to many sources over the past few weeks. Among them are administrators, educators, parents and students. My views have, therefore, been derived from listening to all the various arguments on the report's recommendations -- both for and against. Regardless of all the different points of view, one thing is for certain and that is we must revamp our entire education system. It is totally out of step with most of other nations in the world.
So much has been written on this highly complex subject and with so many of us speaking today, I do not believe it proper for me to re-visit all the details and arguments. I would simply state my views in summary form as follows:
(1) We live in a world of change. If we are afraid to change, because it is always easier to keep the status quo, then we are not living up to Hong Kong's reputation as a thriving and highly adaptable community. Our education system needs to be revamped and if it means short-term disruption we must be bold enough to take a longer view if we believe a new system is better over the long term. I am specifically referring here to reducing the secondary system from seven to six years.
(2) The 6+4 system is almost universal. Are we saying that all academic experts around the world are wrong? The 5+2+3 system is not only antiquated but unnecessarily complicated. In fact I understand this system is being reviewed in the United Kingdom. It is high time we streamlined the system to keep things simple and take some pressure off parents and students alike. I agree to the need to have a common entry point to tertiary education, but I do not agree that this point should be set Form VII.
(3) Many secondary school teachers have admitted privately that most lower sixth students can handle the A-Level examinations. In that case, upper sixth or Form VII would seem to be redundant.
(4) As we move increasingly towards a global economy, our university graduates need to be more rounded as individuals to cope with the changing role of community leaders. Special circumstances such as nature of the subject or exceptionally bright students aside, most tertiary level educators feel that a four-year programme is required to produce quality graduates.
(5) As for the DSS scheme, I would support in principle the commission's recommendations.
I would like to close with this one thought. The Hong Kong Government and many private sector organizations often use consultants because they want to have expert advice before making an important decision. Well, should we not be listening more seriously to experts such as the two vice chancellors of two of our leading
universities? These people are professionals who have devoted their life and their career to education. It would be extremely unwise if the Government should dismiss out of hand their views. They are the experts who are in the "front lines" and we must assume they have the best interest of our young people and future leaders at heart.
I would, therefore, like to strongly urge the Government to carefully reconsider the recommendations relating to the structure of our education system in the light of the considerable misgivings expressed by so many people before making its final decision on implementation.
Sir, with my above stated reservations, I support the motion which merely calls the Council to take note of the report. Thank you.
MR. ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Sir, I now speak in support of Mrs. Selina CHOW's motion. It is very appropriate for this Council to pay attention to the recommendations in the Education Commission Report No. 3 concerning the structure of education and the future of private schools because of their enormous and far-reaching effect on the existing education system of Hong Kong.
Let me first declare my interest in relation to this report. Although I am teaching at the Chinese University which has adopted the so-called four-year system with a Secondary VI entrance point, I graduated from the University of Hong Kong, where the so-called three-year system with the entrance point set after Secondary VII is in force and where I am a member of the Court. I am also, to a certain extent, related to the two polytechnics. I am an external examiner of the diploma course in Public Administration of the Hong Kong Polytechnic and an external assessor of the course in Public and Social Administration of the City Polytechnic. Both institutions set their entrance points after Secondary VII, although for certificate courses, the point of entry is after Secondary V. At the same time, I am the father of three primary and secondary students in whom I repose high hopes.
Sir, if you consider that I am not in the position to speak on this motion, then
I think none of the Councillors are. I believe you would not think so because this motion should be considered as one involving public, not individual, interests. I hope all Members of this Council would put aside their self-interests. I for one would try my best to fulfil this.
Sir, I personally hold the Education Commission in high esteem for having carried out the task and I also fully support the spirit behind the recommendations the commission made in its Report No.3, but I do not quite agree with the main recommendations put forward in the report and the timing of their implementation. As the saying goes, "It works when the timing is right but fails when the timing is wrong."
In short, my views on the structure of tertiary education are similar to those of Mr. Peter POON and the arguments of Mr. Martin LEE. To be specific, I consider that between the two universities, CUHK should retain its existing system while Hong Kong University should change to a system of entry after Secondary VI. As for the two polytechnics, the two entry points set after Secondary VII and V should remain unchanged. Basically I consider that the whole question needs another more thorough and comprehensive review. In setting a unified point of entry for tertiary education, we need to ask ourselves what problem we are faced with. If the problem is to unify all the entrance points, then I have to ask, "Should this so-called unification or standardization be achieved rationally or indiscriminately?" It might result in a system of unified entry level for all graduates of secondary education. However, I consider that further review is necessary. What should be done is to have some aspects rationalized. By this I mean that similar questions should be treated alike while dissimilar questions differently. This is the proper way.
As early as 1975, the Government expressed its hope that the Chinese University would adopt a three-year curriculum and set the entry point at Secondary VII, not for the sake of unification but because of the possible emergence of another problem. Since 1956 a two-year matriculation course had been implemented and it seemed
illogical for the Chinese University to keep its entry point at Secondary VI. Starting from 1975, the Government has been trying to tackle the problem. As Dr. TSE just said, the Baptist College adopted the 2+2+1 system in 1979 because the Government did not favour a four-year curriculum. The Lingnan College followed suit but not the Shue Yan College. I believe that the question of entry point at that time was one related to public policy as the two different entry points had caused a certain degree of confusion. I think that the problem could have been settled more
easily at that time because the Hong Kong Polytechnic had not yet offered any degree courses, the City Polytechnic had not been set up and both the Baptist College and the Lingnan College had not been accorded recognition as a degree-conferring institution. Under such circumstances, it could have been possible for the Government either to unify the entry point at Secondary VI or to urge the Chinese University to set the entry point at Secondary VII. By now, the golden opportunity has gone and the entire problem has become very complicated.
In the course of development, the Chinese University solved its part of the problem by establishing the Provisional Acceptance Scheme (PAS). Just now, some Members said that basically the scheme is not a proper measure, and its introduction has worsened the situation. However, I consider that the scheme helps identify potential CU undergraduates for whom separate courses could be devised by the schools they are attending so that disruption to the continuity of the two-year sixth form curriculum is lessened. Moreover, the scheme was designed to reduce the pressure of examinations, thereby enabling sixth form education to be more comprehensive rather than specialized. Selection under the PAS, which is based on the results of the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination, is only a conditional offer and those selected will be required to reach a certain standard in some assessments. By not taking into account the results of the Higher-level examination, the Chinese University hopes to alleviate the examination pressure on the candidates. All these were cited as grounds for the Chinese University to change to a system of entry after Secondary VII. But the opportunity was lost. It is high time that we reviewed the entire education system.
As regards the Direct Subsidy Scheme proposed in the Education Commission Report No. 3, my opinions are more or less the same as those of Mr. NGAI Shiu-kit but far different from those of Mr SZETO Wah. I believe that the essence of the DSS is not to promote privatization or elitism, that is, the kind of elitism referred to by Mr. SZETO.
What we should aim to achieve is genuine competition among students as well as among schools. If all the government and aided schools were placed under the control of a bureaucratic structure, their competitiveness would be completely lost, and if allocation of places was entirely determined at random by computers, teachers would find the additional effort they put into their work and education as a whole absolutely meaningless. However, if DSS must be implemented to restore competitiveness, we should start from lower down, that is, from the primary level. The provision of
nine-year free compulsory education was proposed in the Green Paper and White Paper on Secondary Education in Hong Kong published in 1974 and 1975 respectively. At that time, I put forward a counter-proposal of an eight-year free compulsory education, which would provide eight years' basic schooling, with four years at the elementary level to be followed by four years at the higher level. An open examination would be held thereafter. The Secondary School Entrance Examination (SSEE) would thus be deferred by two years. Students would then be allocated to different schools in different areas according to their aspirations, academic performance and the wishes of individual schools. There would be no need therefore for secondary schools to be regionalized, although schools providing the basic education should. In this way, there would be real competition among the schools. At that time, I did not mention whether Secondary III, IV and V should be followed by Secondary VI. This issue could be addressed at the same time. If both reviews are carried out simultaneously, then the system of 4+4+4 plus another 4 could be considered. I proposed this at that time in the hope that the SSEE could be deferred by two years because I thought that it was unfair for an 11-year-old Primary VI student to have his future determined solely by his academic performance. However, I made the proposal because of the need to allocate places according to students' aspirations, interests and abilities. Under the present primary and secondary education systems, turning secondary schools to directly subsidized private schools would give rise to many problems. I therefore think that it is inopportune to implement this system.
In an allegory in LU's "Spring and Autumn Annals", a native of the State of Chu dropped his sword into the water while crossing the river by boat. He made a mark on the side of the boat to indicate the place where his sword was dropped. After the boat had reached the shore, he traced the mark and searched for his sword which by then was lying on the bottom of the river, a long way from the boat. What a muddled way to recover one's lost property!
While we should not disregard the changing circumstances, we should avoid politicalizing the issue. In his policy address on 12 October, the Governor Sir David Wilson put forward a new idea -- the formation of a policy reviewing unit. I am by no means being impolite to the Education Commission, especially after Mr. SZETO said just now that he regretted for not having been appointed to the commission. Nevertheless, appointed or not, the job nature of the commission was to make political judgements. As far as education system is concerned, rational judgements are more important. The experts should take a rational and overall view at the issues. Therefore, I fully agree with Mr Paul CHENG that the most important task for the future
Central Policy Unit is to conduct a comprehensive review on the education system of Hong Kong. Under the present circumstances, it is unwise to implement the proposals of Report No. 3 in haste. Sir, with this, I support the motion.
6.20 pm
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Members may like at this moment to take a short break. 6.56 pm
HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Council will resume.
MR. LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Sir, despite it being a place lacking in resources, Hong Kong is able to win the admiration of the world by its rapid economic development and remarkable achievements. Our human resources are the main force that keeps Hong Kong on the move. As a matter of fact, the quick-minded, enterprising and hard-working people of Hong Kong are the most crucial factor of our success.
The Hong Kong Government has always been placing great importance on training to provide the necessary manpower. Great efforts have been made to raise the quality of our work force by promoting education opportunities. Public spending on education constitutes a large portion of government expenditure. This basic policy is widely supported by the general public. Since education expenses are a major public expenditure item, it is natural for us to show concern on the rational and efficient use of the financial resources available for this purpose. However, in demanding for rational and efficient use of our financial resources, we should be aware of the need to attach special weight to the development of education, in particular, the necessity to enhance the provision of education and raise the standard of education. It is only through the approach of improving our manpower in both quality and quantity that we can hope to survive in a keenly competitive world with ever-increasing demands on skills and technology. In this connection, I think we must take a more positive attitude towards the development of education by conducting regular reviews on the existing policies and systems and making recommendations where and when necessary.
The Education Commission Report No. 3 proposes to replace the present three subsidy schemes for private schools with a Direct Subsidy Scheme. The purpose is to help private schools raise their teaching standard through the introduction of a
market mechanism, that is, by means of competitions and give them greater autonomy to manage their business. They are free to design their own curriculum and use their grant for educational purpose. This recommendation has certain advantages; but its shortcomings are also obvious. During the consultation period for the report, the education sector has expressed its objections to this scheme. They are of the view that the Direct Subsidy Scheme would render support to an "elitist" system and disrupt the Secondary School Places Allocation System, thus exerting more pressure on the students. The proposed Direct Subsidy Scheme is a very controversial issue. I hope that the Government can work out a better subsidy scheme after giving careful
consideration to the views put forward by various sectors.
In addition, I think that the report has missed out some important aspects. For example, there is no mention of any specific and feasible proposals on how to improve the standard of education, reduce the examination pressure inherent in the present education system and clear up the chaotic situation arising therefrom. The report seems to be too persistent in a two-year matriculation course and use it as the basis for its other recommendations. This would become, on one hand, an obstacle to any reasonable reforms in the structure of secondary education and an excuse for
compelling the universities to adopt a generalized system of three-year courses on the other.
In order to achieve the objectives I have earlier mentioned and to provide better training for our human resources, I suggest that the Administration should consider:
(1) adopting a unified system of a six-year secondary education; (2) abolishing the matriculation course; and
(3) converting first degree courses into four-year courses.
If the University of Hong Kong converts the length of its courses from three years to four years, it will provide a favourable condition for setting a common entry point and for making changes in the structure of university education. There is no reason for us to hold back any improvement in the standard of university education and give up the opportunity of improving secondary education just for the mere sake of
maintaining a two-year matriculation system.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. BARROW: Sir, I would like to comment very briefly on only one aspect of the Education Commission Report, related to the support for international schools.
I frequently find that in talking to Hong Kong people who are leaving -- and I also hear from those already overseas -- that the availability of the appropriate type of education for their children will weigh heavily on their minds in deciding whether or not to return.
I believe it is right that we should do everything possible to encourage as many professional people as possible to rejoin this community. These people, with overseas working experience, can play a vital role in maintaining Hong Kong as a vigorous international business centre to the benefit of Hong Kong as a whole. An increase in the availability of bilingual education should help achieve this aim.
English may have become the first language of such children, but the parents will wish them to resume Chinese language studies as well. In addition, there is more to this than just language. Many parents will also be looking for a bicultural education, as is being admirably provided by the Chinese International School founded in 1983. I believe it is that school's emphasis on Chinese culture which makes it attractive, as a distinctive feature lacking in schools overseas. Perhaps I too should declare an interest at this point as my eight-year-old son had four years of happy and
successful education at that school.
Bilingualism in English and Chinese is also desirable for any child growing up in Hong Kong regardless of origin; many members of the international community are equally committed to Hong Kong on a long-term basis and this must be the only place in the world where less than 2% of the foreign population can speak the language.
I endorse therefore the recommendation that there should be continued backing through land grants and other forms of support for non-profit-making international schools, particularly those offering bicultural education based on a Chinese heritage.
With these words, Sir, I support the motion.
MR. MICHAEL CHENG (in Cantonese): Sir, It is due to the hard work of everyone in our society and the special attention we have paid to education that Hong Kong is able to enjoy stability and prosperity today. Our education system has been effective in producing an admirable number of talents to keep Hong Kong on the move. However, there is still room for improvement. The structure of tertiary education and the development of private schools are issues of our utmost concern because they have far-reaching effects on our standard of education.
The structure of tertiary education
It has long been the wish of the public to see the introduction of a joint university entrance examination. Under the present system, a secondary school student is required to sit for the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination and the Hong Kong Higher Level Examination or the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination within a short span of two years in order to go up to the university. They have to sit for various examinations mainly because the two universities in Hong Kong have adopted different course structures and set their entry point at different stages of the matriculation education. In order to gain admission to the University of Hong Kong, a secondary school student has to pass the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination with flying colours. Access to the Chinese University of Hong Kong can, however, be gained through the Provisional Acceptance Scheme for those who have obtained outstanding results in the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination or on the basis of their good results in the Hong Kong Higher Level Examination. Our secondary school students are under great stress because of these examinations which take a heavy toll on their mental growth. Hence, both the parents and the public at large are anxious that students may be relieved of examination pressure by means of an integrated matriculation course structure, a common entry point to be adopted by the universities and the introduction of joint admission procedures for all tertiary institutions. Students will then be required to sit for a single examination for placement in one of our tertiary institutions.
The problem at issue is the question of the entry point. Should it be set at Form VI or Form VII?
If the entry point is set at Form VI, students will spend only one year in the matriculation class. This will make it necessary for them to sit for a university entrance examination in less than a year after their taking the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination. They will spend all their time preparing for the
examination in order to strive for the best possible results in the university entrance examination. In consequence, the pressure of examination will be extremely heavy for this group of students, leaving them little time for extra-curricular activities. The promotion of extra-curricular activities and leadership training will be seriously jeopardized and the major objective of secondary education to provide a general and balanced education can hardly be achieved. At present, most extra-curricular activities in secondary schools are promoted with the help of the relatively more mature students from Form VI and they are looked upon as leaders by the junior form participants. It is through this kind of participation that opportunities are provided for students to develop their spirit of co-operation, self-rule, self-discipline and leadership.
Given the aforesaid objectives, I believe that it is more desirable to set the entry point to universities at the end of a two-year matriculation course. On the other hand, we could introduce a much broadened and more diversified curriculum for the matriculation classes. This will help to eliminate the existing drawbacks of laying too much emphasis on a few examination subjects. Under such an arrangement, students will be given the chance of receiving one more year of general education with a balanced curriculum in secondary schools, which will be very useful to their future careers even if they could not enter the universities and have to take up employment or pursue other technical courses. The number of young people who will benefit from this kind of arrangement far exceeds those who will benefit from
education in the few tertiary institutions.
The tertiary institutions in Hong Kong have adopted either a three-year or a four-year course structure. Both course structures have worked well for many years. They are equally effective in producing good-quality professionals, why then should we insist on a generalized system of a four-year course structure for the universities?
For the general interest of Hong Kong, I think it would be more advantageous to the overall social development of the community if the projected subsidy of more than $700 million required for the implementation of a generalized system of a four-year course structure can be used to subsidize other areas of our education system where there is a more pressing need for funds. For instance, the increase of places in tertiary education, training in technology, extension of our free and compulsory education to the level of Form V, provision of subsidized pre-primary services,
widening the basis of education service to benefit more people and raising the literacy level of the general public. At the same time, we should be aware of the inevitable consequence of a decline in the number of available places in the tertiary