1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 16 January 1991 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 16 January 1991 1
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 16 January 1991
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR (PRESIDENT)
SIR DAVID CLIVE WILSON, G.C.M.G.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR DAVID ROBERT FORD, K.B.E., L.V.O., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR PIERS JACOBS, K.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN CHEONG KAM-CHUEN, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG YAN-LUNG, C.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, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN HSU LAI-TAI, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PETER POON WING-CHEUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHENG HON-KWAN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG PUI-LAM, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., 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, J.P.
PROF. THE HONOURABLE POON CHUNG-KWONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAI CHIN-WAH, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS ROSANNA TAM WONG YICK-MING, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE DANIEL TSE, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE GRAHAM BARNES, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E. 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, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG WAI-TUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE 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, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE YEUNG KAI-YIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
THE HONOURABLE PETER TSAO KWANG-YUNG, C.B.E., C.P.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
THE HONOURABLE ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, O.B.E., A.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL DAVID CARTLAND, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
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
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Ordinance 1990
Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) (Specification of Substances)
Order
1991................................................................... 12/91
Merchant Shipping (Liability and Compensation
for Oil Pollution) Ordinance 1990
Merchant Shipping (Liability and
Compensation for Oil Pollution) Ordinance
1990 (Commencement) Notice 1991................................ 13/91
Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Ordinance 1990
Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Ordinance 1990 (Commencement)
Notice
1991................................................................... 14/91
Pension Benefits Ordinance Pension Benefits Ordinance (Established Offices) Order 1991..................................... 15/91
Revised Edition of the Laws Ordinance 1965 Revised Edition of the Laws
(Correction of Errors) Order 1991..................................
16/91
Sessional Papers 1990-91
No. 39 -- Hong Kong Examination Authority Financial Statements with Programme of Activities for the year ended 31 August 1990
No. 40 -- Emergency Relief Fund Annual Report by the Trustee for the year ending on 31 March 1990
No. 41 -- Report by the Trustee of the Police Children's Education Trust Police Education and Welfare Trust for the period 1 April 1988 -- 31 March 1989 No. 42 -- Report by the Trustee of the Police Children's Education Trust Police Education and Welfare Trust for the period 1 April 1989 -- 31 March 1990
Oral answers to questions
Public sector reform
1. MR BARROW asked: Will the Government inform this Council of its current approach to public sector reform?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, our current approach has been to select priority areas of public sector reform and use pilot projects to test the wider applicability of new concepts to enable us to decide how best to extend the benefits to other parts of the Government. Four pilot projects are under way.
The first project reviews the relationship between the Education and Manpower Branch and the Education Department in the schools education programme. The object is to strengthen the role of the Policy Secretary in allocating resources within his particular area of responsibility. The review has been completed and recommended the introduction of a formal system for reviewing policies, agreeing on objectives, and evaluating performance based on the production of an annual policy statement by the Branch, and an annual operating plan and a five-year plan by the Department. The Policy Secretary and the Controlling Officer would be delegated more financial
authority to manage their budgets. These recommendations will be implemented in the Education and Manpower Branch and the Education Department on a trial basis in the 1992-93 Estimates.
The second project examines the feasibility of introducing a trading fund operation into the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. A business review of the vehicle section of the Department has concluded that it could benefit substantially in terms of reduced costs and better service by taking a more commercial approach. We are now considering the introduction of a new accounting framework under which the vehicle section will charge full costs for services it provides to other departments and will be required to achieve specific financial and operational targets. This first step towards the creation of a trading fund will be taken in the next few months.
The third project reviews the Government's relationship with major statutory bodies. The object of this review is to strengthen the ability of the Government to monitor the performance of these bodies by formalizing the arrangements for agreeing on objectives and accountability. The review covers 13 major statutory bodies and has largely been completed. The initial finding is that the present reporting and monitoring framework is generally satisfactory, although there is room for improvement, such as the need for some bodies to define more clearly their operational objectives. This will be looked at further by Policy Secretaries concerned. It is our intention to undertake the review periodically to examine the scope for improvements.
The fourth project examines increasing delegation of authority by Civil Service Branch and Finance Branch to give departments more flexibility and responsibility for the effective use of their resources. Controlling Officers have now been delegated authority for appointments and promotions, control of recruiting expenses, control of funds for vocational training, as well as under a number of other Civil Service Regulations. This process will continue. Separately, four working groups are
looking at the main areas of concern to departments. These include recruitment, the Departmental Establishment Committees, equipment procurement, and office accommodation procedures.
Sir, the programme is complemented and supported by value-for-money studies which focus on efficiency improvements to specific, individual services and activities.
MR BARROW: Sir, I am pleased to learn from the Chief Secretary's response that the initiatives proposed a year or so ago have not run out of steam. However, given that the current initiatives are described as pilot projects, could the Chief Secretary confirm that there is a total commitment at all levels to the overall reform programme, and that the benefits are fully understood at the directorate level?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Yes, Sir.
MR PETER WONG: Sir, my question is very similar to Mr Martin BARROW's but I will ask it anyway for the assurance. Can the Chief Secretary please confirm that the Administration is still fully committed to public sector reform?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Yes, Sir.
MR EDWARD HO: Sir, the four pilot projects are aimed at better control of resources in government departments and public bodies. Would the Secretary please inform this Council what is being done to monitor the performance of individual officers in the Civil Service to achieve maximum efficiency?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, clearly, part of any public services reform programme is education and training of the individuals concerned to ensure that they are fully aware of the aims and objectives of the programme and are well motivated. We are running a series of courses in our Training Division to ensure that people do understand the purposes behind the public sector reform, and indeed we have regular discussions of the programme at my Chief Secretary's Committee. We are also taking into account the performance of people in the management of resources in producing their annual confidential reports.
MR BARROW: Sir, could the Chief Secretary inform this Council if both corporatization and privatization form part of the long-term direction of reform, and if there are any specific plans in addition to those related to the new airport?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, yes, we are keeping the whole question of corporatization and contracting-out of services under regular review. We do not intend to pursue them for their own sake but we are examining them on an on-going basis, looking for the most efficient and effective ways of providing public services. Some of the projects currently under consideration are:
the building and operating of the Island East Refuse Transfer Station; contracting-out of the Aberdeen Tunnel;
the privatization of vehicle examination;
the contracting-out of the management of parking-meters;
the implementation of the sewage strategy;
the reorganization of the Registrar General's Department;
the privatization of land-fill; and
the privatization of public cargo-working areas.
Clearly, Sir, as far as the port and airport development strategy project is concerned, there are a number of projects which are suitable for privatization and these are kept under review also.
Expenditure on district administration
2. MR POON CHI-FAI asked (in Cantonese): In view of the drastic reduction of expenditure on community building programmes, district board allocations and staffing costs of the City and New Territories Administration (CNTA), will Government inform this Council :
(i) of the number of public works projects and community building programmes in 1991-92 which have to be deferred as a result of budgetary controls and the total
costs of these affected programmes and projects;
(ii) of the difference in the allocation of district board funds for the following year in comparison with the amount of funds allocated this year; the difference between the original and the proposed establishment for CNTA next year; and
(iii) what criteria have been used in determining the reduction of expenses in relation to those affected programmes, district board allocations and staffing costs; what effects it will have on the livelihood of the people, the implementation of district administration, the operation of the various district boards, area
committees, mutual aid committees and owners' corporations; and what specific measures are available to minimize these effects?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Sir, I think it would be more helpful to Members if I were to reverse the order in responding to in fact some 11 points in Mr POON's question.
First, on l7 October last year, I issued a press release on the measures that would be introduced in l99l-92 to reduce spending and streamline the operations of the City and New Territories Administration. The district board chairmen were briefed by the respective District Officers on the same day. The aim is to achieve savings in manpower and expenses as part of the Government's austerity programme whilst at the same time maintaining standards as far as possible by making the best use of existing services. I wish to stress, Sir, that these measures have been prompted solely by the need to control Government's recurrent expenditure. Government remains fully committed to the district administration scheme in which the district boards play such an important role. If and when implemented on l April l99l, the new arrangements will be monitored closely and great care will be taken to ensure that services to the district boards, area committees, mutual aid committees and the general public remain unaffected.
The actual figures to be proposed for the 1991-92 Draft Estimates have not yet been finalized.
Sir, I assume that by public works projects, Mr POON is referring to what we call minor environmental improvement or MEI projects, which together with community involvement projects, are carried out each year on the advice of the respective district boards out of their annual district board fund allocations. The total
number of these projects is determined by the number of requests or funding applications received from district organizations each year. As a district board member, Mr POON would be aware that for this reason, it would not be possible to establish in advance the number of MEI projects and community programmes that will have to be deferred because of the proposed reduction in district board funds. Discussions are taking place with a number of other organizations with a view to devising a new programme which would lessen any adverse impact of diminished allocation in funds. Our aim is to restore, as far as possible and at least in part, the allocations for MEIs.
MR POON CHI-FAI (in Cantonese): Sir, according to a recent district board information paper, the number of public enquiry service centres will be reduced from 69 to 20; for example, in Kwun Tong, the existing seven centres will be reduced to one to cover a population of about 600,000. Does the Government realize that such reductions will not only cause inconvenience to residents but will also indirectly undermine the link of the Government with the public, mutual aid committees and owners' corporations? Will the Administration consider establishing some mobile enquiry service centres, or using some offices in densely-populated estates as pubic enquiry service centres?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Sir, the number of public enquiry service centres will be reduced to 20 but we will ensure that in every locality of population concentration there will remain at least one centre within reasonably easy reach. The reduced public enquiry service will be backed up by an automated system computerized with, possibly, up-to-the-hour data on the basis of which replies to inquiries will be made through a telephone hotline.
Sir, I envisage despite the reduction of the number of centres, we in fact will improve the quality of the service.
Hong Kong's participation in the Second World Climate Conference
3. MR MARTIN LEE asked: Will Government inform this Council of the full circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of our honourable colleague, Mr Graham BARNES, from the ministerial session of the Second World Climate Conference sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva on 6 - 7 November 1990; and state
categorically:
(a) whether there were any discussions between the Hong Kong Government and the Governments of either the United Kingdom or the People's Republic of China (PRC) in regard to the withdrawal of Mr BARNES, and if so, what was the substance of those discussions; and
(b) what is the position of the Hong Kong Government on the future participation of Hong Kong in the WMO and other specialized agencies of the United Nations and conferences sponsored by such specialized agencies?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, Hong Kong was invited to attend the Second World Climate Conference in November last year. The Conference was divided into two parts : the first six days, for technical experts, were attended throughout by the Hong Kong delegation. At the second part, lasting two days, ministers of participating states were to endorse an action plan for dealing with the climate change. The invitation to Hong Kong to attend both parts of the Conference was issued by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. Hong Kong is a "territorial" member of the World Meteorological Organization, as distinct from a state, governmental or United Nations member. But Hong Kong is not a member of the United Nations Environment Programme. Territorial membership of the World Meteorological Organization is designed to enable non-sovereign states who maintain their own meteorological services, such as Hong Kong, to participate in the World Meteorological Organization in a capacity distinct from sovereign states.
The Conference was sponsored by six international organizations. Hong Kong participates in the activities of only two of these : the World Meteorological Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization. Proceedings at the Second World Climate Conference were governed by the Conference's own rules of procedure. The Conference Secretariat confirmed that Hong Kong's invitation flowed from its membership of the World Meteorological Organization.
The Hong Kong delegation attended the first part of the Conference which lasted six days and found it very useful. Shortly before the second part of the Conference, that is the two-day ministerial part, the PRC questioned Hong Kong's participation on the basis that it would not be consistent with its non-sovereign status. Following consultations with the United Kingdom Government it was decided that, since the matter could not immediately be resolved, the Hong Kong delegation should be withdrawn. We
made it clear to the Chinese side that this decision in no way prejudiced Hong Kong's status in the World Meteorological Organization or our right to participate in our own name in World Meteorological Organization conferences.
With regard to the second part of the Honourable Member's question, we have agreed with the Chinese in the Joint Liaison Group that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) will continue to have its own meteorological service after 1997 and will remain a territorial member of the World Meteorological Organization. We have also agreed with the Chinese on the Hong Kong SAR's participation in a number of other United Nations agencies, such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development; the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and the Intergovernmental Typhoon Committee.
MR MARTIN LEE: In deciding to have the Hong Kong delegation withdrawn from the ministerial session of the said conference, did the United Kingdom and/or Hong Kong Government take the view that the objections from the PRC were valid or invalid and why was it decided not to leave the objection to be resolved by the Conference Secretariat or by the delegates attending the conference?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, we were clear and the British Government was clear that the position of the Hong Kong Government should have allowed it to remain at the conference. However, another view was expressed by the Chinese delegation to the effect that, firstly, the Second World Climate Conference was jointly sponsored by a number of United Nations agencies and Hong Kong was a member of only one, the WMO; secondly, that it would not have been appropriate for Hong Kong as a non-sovereign entity to sign the Ministerial Declaration. Clearly there is room for two points of view on Hong Kong's position at the conference although we clearly were aware of our own. We did not decide to put the matter to the vote since the outcome was uncertain and could have caused embarrassment to the Hong Kong delegation.
MR LI: Sir, would the Government inform this Council if the Government of the PRC has voiced any objections to the participation of Hong Kong in any other international organization of which Hong Kong is currently a member, and also in conferences sponsored by those organizations?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, my memory is that there have been some occasions on which such an occurrence has happened but I do not have the details at present with me.
MR ARCULLI: Sir, would the Chief Secretary be able to inform this Council when it was known to participants that Hong Kong was invited to attend the ministerial part of the conference and, secondly, whether participants in the ministerial part of the conference had a status similar to Hong Kong, that is non-sovereign status?
CHIEF SECRETARY: I am not in a position to say when people were aware of certain situations; that must have been a matter for the organizers of the conference. Nor am I in a position to comment on the position of other states taking part in the conference.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, will the Government state whether it believes Hong Kong is allowed under the Joint Declaration to participate in ministerial sessions as well as other sessions of conferences that are not limited to states?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, if Hong Kong is a member of the sponsor of the conference, then Hong Kong does have that right under the Joint Declaration.
MR CHOW: Sir, would Government inform this Council as to whether Hong Kong has participated in other conferences sponsored by the WMO and, in particular, the First World Climate Conference and, if so, in what capacity?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, my information is that the first of these conferences was a "think tank". Hong Kong was not invited to attend and did not do so. It has attended subsequently other meetings sponsored by the WMO.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, in light of Annex I, Section 11 of the Joint Declaration which states: "that the Central People's Government shall take the necessary steps to ensure
that the Hong Kong SAR shall continue to retain its status in an appropriate capacity in those international organizations of which the PRC is a member and in which Hong Kong participates in one capacity or another", will the Government inform this Council whether it believes that any effort by the PRC Government to bar the participation of Hong Kong in the Second World Climate Conference constitutes a breach of at least the spirit of the Joint Declaration?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, the status of the SAR Government in the Joint Declaration is not relevant in advance of 1997 and we do not believe that in this case the Chinese Government was in breach of the Joint Declaration in this respect. Clearly, their objection on this occasion was in connection with the sponsorship of the conference in question and with the fact that there were more than one sponsors of which Hong Kong was not a member. They were making that objection as a participant in the
conference.
DR LEONG: Sir, in the light of the fact that the Second World Climate Conference was sponsored by many organizations such as the WMO, the United Nations Environmental Programme, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization, will the Government inform this Council if it knows whether all participants in the ministerial sessions of the conference were required to be members of all these organizations or whether membership of one
organization was sufficient?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, as I said in answer to a previous question, I am not in a position to comment on the position of other participants in the conference.
MR BARROW: Sir, could the Chief Secretary advise if a full list of the international memberships already agreed in the Joint Liaison Group could be made public?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, that information is already made available in a publication on the achievements of the Joint Liaison Group. I will arrange for the Honourable Member to have a copy.
Written answer to question
Use of accident and emergency services by Vietnamese refugees and boat people
4. MR CHOW asked: Will Government inform this Council whether the usage rate of accident and emergency services and the occupancy rate of beds in regional and subvented hospitals by Vietnamese refugees and boat people have risen during the past two years, and whether their use of these services has seriously affected and caused delay to local people using the same services?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: The monthly average of Vietnamese refugees and boat people using the accident and emergency service in regional hospitals has risen from 805 in 1989 to 992 in 1990. In the same period, the average occupancy of regional hospital beds by these people has also increased from 2.3% to 2.9%.
In subvented hospitals, they account for 0.47% of the bed occupancy. This rate has remained steady over the last two years. No record was kept of their use of the subvented accident and emergency service prior to May 1990. Based on the statistics available since then, it is observed that approximately 120 Vietnamese refugees and boat people visit the accident and emergency department in subvented hospitals each month.
Overall, the use of medical facilities by Vietnamese refugees and boat people constitutes less than 3% of the case-load and occupancy in regional hospitals and less than 0.5% in subvented hospitals. These can be absorbed within the capacity of our hospitals and thus have had little impact on service to the public. No member of the public has ever been turned away or denied prompt and adequate treatment because of the use of these facilities by Vietnamese refugees and boat people.
Motion
DRUG TRAFFICKING (RECOVERY OF PROCEEDS) ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY moved the following motion:
"That the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1991, made by the Governor in Council on 8 January 1991 -
(1) be amended -
(a) in paragraph 2, in the definition of "appropriate authority of a designated country", by repealing " " and substituting " ";
(b) in paragraph 5(1)(b), by repealing " " and substituting " "; (c) in paragraph 2(e) of Schedule 2 -
(i) in the new subsection (12)(a), by repealing " " and substituting " "; and
(ii) in the new subsection (13), by repealing " " and substituting " ";
(d) in Schedule 3 -
(i) in section 2(12)(a) of the modified Ordinance, by repealing " " and substituting " ";
(ii) in section 2(13) of the modified Ordinance, by repealing " " and substituting
" "; and
(iii) in section 7(9) of the modified Ordinance, by repealing "
He said: Sir, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance, enacted in July 1989, has strengthened our ability to combat the international trade in drugs by providing for the tracing, restraining and confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking. Section 28(1) of the Ordinance provides for the Governor in Council, with the approval of this Council, to designate countries and territories outside Hong Kong to enable their confiscation and other orders relating to drug trafficking to be enforced here; it also allows assistance to be provided in relation to their drug trafficking
investigations. To ensure reciprocal treatment, Hong Kong has negotiated bilateral arrangements with Canada, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
These arrangements will come into effect when the parties to them have notified each other that their respective requirements for entry into force have been met. In Hong Kong's case, the requirement is for the overseas jurisdictions to be designated under the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance.
This motion seeks the Council's approval to the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1991 made by the Governor in Council on 8 January 1991, subject to the amendments listed in the draft resolution now before this Council. These amendments are solely to rectify clerical errors, and to achieve consistency with the Chinese terms used in the main Ordinance; they
represent no substantive change to the Order made by the Governor in Council.
The Designation Order will apply the Ordinance with certain modifications to Confiscation Orders and related proceedings in the countries and territories with which Hong Kong has negotiated bilateral arrangements. In particular the High Court will be able to:
(a) order the restraint in Hong Kong of property which may be required to enforce a confiscation order made in a designated country or territory; and
(b) register and enforce a confiscation order made by a court in a designated country or territory.
The Designation Order also provides, in paragraph 7, that the value of any property recovered in a designated country or territory in response to a request by the Government of Hong Kong for assistance in the enforcement of an order is to be treated as reducing the amount payable in Hong Kong under a confiscation order made by the High Court or District Court. This mechanism is required since, under the arrangements negotiated, property recovered would normally remain where it is recovered.
The modifications to the Ordinance are set out in Schedule 2 to the Order. These modifications are mainly of a technical nature, to make the provisions applicable to the law and practice relating to confiscation orders and related provisions in
the designated jurisdictions. For the convenience of users of this legislation, both in Hong Kong and abroad, the whole Ordinance, as modified, is set out in Schedule 3 to the Order.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
First Reading of Bills
SECURITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
PROTECTION OF INVESTORS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
COMMODITY EXCHANGES (PROHIBITION) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
COMMODITIES TRADING (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1990
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
SECURITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Securities Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Securities (Amendment) Bill 1990 be read the Second time.
This Bill seeks to extend the time limit for the commencement of proceedings for summary offences as contained in the Securities Ordinance from six months to three years after an offence has been committed or 12 months after the first discovery of the offence by the prosecutor, whichever period expires first.
Summary offences concerning the trading of securities and registration of dealers are often complex in nature, involving numerous witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence. Experience of the Securities and Futures Commission indicates that the existing six-month time limit is too restrictive because an offence may not come to light until some time after it was committed. Furthermore, in most cases
considerable time is required to prepare for the prosecution. The extension of the time limit will assist in facilitating the effective enforcement of the Securities Ordinance.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
PROTECTION OF INVESTORS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Protection of Investors Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Protection of Investors (Amendment) Bill 1990 be read the Second time.
This Bill seeks to extend the period within which proceeding for summary offences under the Ordinance may be brought. The provisions are the same as those contained in the Securities (Amendment) Bill 1990 which I have just moved. The summary offences in the Protection of Investors Ordinance are concerned primarily with the advertising of unregistered investment business.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
COMMODITY EXCHANGES (PROHIBITION) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Commodity Exchanges (Prohibition) Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Commodity Exchanges (Prohibition) (Amendment) Bill 1990 be read the Second time.
This Bill has the same provisions as those contained in the Securities (Amendment) Bill and the Protection of Investors (Amendment) Bill which I have just moved. The summary offences in the Commodities Exchanges (Prohibition) Ordinance relate mainly to the establishment and operation of a commodity exchange.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
COMMODITIES TRADING (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1990
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Commodities Trading Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Commodities Trading (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1990 be read the Second time.
This Bill carries the same provisions as those proposed in the three Bills which I have just moved. The summary offences in the Commodities Trading Ordinance relate mainly to trading in commodities futures contracts and the registration of dealers.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
Member's motion
EDUCATION COMMISSION REPORT NO. 4
MRS CHOW moved the following motion:
"That this Council takes note of the Education Commission Report No. 4 and urges members of the public to comment on the Report before the expiry of the consultation period on 31 January 1991."
MRS CHOW: Sir, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
A little over 10 years ago, I had the opportunity to speak for the first time in this Council. The subject I chose was education. Armed with the first hand experience of a concerned mother and little else, I prefaced my speech with a complaint that parents' views on education were not sought, and spoke with much conviction on the need for whole day schooling, attention to the curriculum, and language in education. Since then I have repeatedly spoken, whenever I had the opportunity, on educational matters as a parent and a business person. I was therefore gratified to have been drafted into the Education Commission a year ago, where I had a modest part to play in the making of the Commission No. 4 Report before us to-day. Having been so involved in that process, my objectivity must be called to question if I were to say that it is a good report, although I wholeheartedly believe it is for its balanced good sense, clarity of vision and definition of objectives. This is not to say that I am in total agreement with every single detail of the report, but more of that later. What made this report special is the spirit behind it, so ably led and inspired by the Chairman Mrs Rita FAN and Deputy Chairman of the Commission Mr K.Y. YEUNG, which represents a rare unity of purpose and determination to improve the standard of education in our schools. The package of measures is one, and all parts are interdependent, while the approach to our deliberation was comprehensive and interlinked. The integrity of this strategic approach should be appreciated and respected.
For years I have been convinced that the attention paid to curriculum development was not only grossly inadequate but also unsatisfactorily placed. The Advisory Inspectorate of the Education Department has been widely recognized to concentrate most of their efforts on school inspections, while initiatives in curriculum development have been accorded secondary consideration. As their title suggests, inspectors are there to inspect, and this function may require very different qualities and priorities from demands arising from the creation, shaping and improvement of the curriculum and its related materials and activities. The separation of the two functions is therefore the undoubtedly logical step to take. Initially I was among those who advocated the setting up of an independent Curriculum Development Institute outside of Government. However, I am now satisfied that the present proposals with provisions for a one-line vote and the open recruitment policy on contract terms should ensure room that is necessary for the unconstrained development of the Institute. However, no effort should be spared to identify the most qualified and committed leadership with the merit and competence acknowledged
by fellow professionals to set a strong foundation for this body. Also it should be able to rely on the Education Department for support and a reconstituted Curriculum Development Council for good counsel from within and outside the Government.
Of the tasks proposed for the Curriculum Development Council and the Institute, I rate the need to promote the adoption of the activity approach as one that demands top priority. Every parent would like to see his child enjoy going to school. A curriculum that nurtures an interest in learning is one that breeds the will and initiative towards a positive attitude to receive and acquire education during the formative years of the child.
The most controversial topic in the report must be language in education. This is a difficult issue, difficult in that there is a mismatch between our aspiration and our capability.
Every parent wants the best for his child. In the Hong Kong context, the value of English has historically been recognized as an instrument to academic and commercial advancement. However, with the universalization of educational opportunities as well as the strengthening of ties with China, we are now faced with the undesirable reality of deteriorating standards in both languages. No doubt researchers and statisticians will challenge this, and I am the first one to concede that this is only an impression formed on the basis of social and commercial contacts I have had with graduates, undergraduates and school children of different levels. But it is certainly an impression widely shared by many.
The mixed use of English and Chinese for teaching could be the cause or effect or the cause and effect of the lack of a clear-cut language policy in schools. Most parents send their children to what they think are schools that use English as the medium of instruction, but the fact of the matter is mixed-code as a poor substitute is widely used in most classrooms. 70% of children, we are told, cannot learn
effectively in English which is a language they seldom use in their everyday life. What we are not told is how many per cent of the teachers who are supposed to be teaching in English do not have the necessary standard to do so. The Advisory Inspectorate of the Education Department should have the answer to this crucial question, but has been rather silent on the subject. Parents however deserve to know.
Since the publication of the Education Commission Report No. 1 in 1984 when steps have been taken to encourage a wider use of Chinese in the classroom, less then half of the government, aided and caput secondary schools have adopted Chinese fully or
partly as their medium of instruction. This is simply not good enough.
The framework proposed in this report is a distinct improvement, mapping out a definite timetable while allowing free choice to both schools and parents within the time frame. Personally I felt that Government should assume more of the responsibility sooner in setting the standard which schools must meet to enable them to offer English as the medium of instruction while assessment of capabilities of the students takes place simultaneously. However, I was persuaded that time and allowance should be given to schools and parents alike between the statement of intention and the actual implementation, and the choice should be assisted by reliable information based on the present Hong Kong Attainment Test and eventually the target related assessment from 1994. What is now contained in the report is an acceptable compromise which in my view would work if the education community as a whole act in accordance with the interest of educational objectives rather than market demands. Already we hear outcry for mandatory adoption of Chinese across the board emanating from the fear that those schools opting for Chinese might lose out on good quality students to schools opting for English. This may be the easy way out, but I cannot support it for its deprivation of choice to those capable of benefitting from opting for English and for the damage it would do to undermine the status of bilingualism in Hong Kong which would in turn diminish Hong Kong's standing as an international city.
Much as I and many parents that I have come across raised this issue, we would prefer whole day schooling for all levels of primary school. I believe that the mixed-mode system proposed in the report is a step in the right direction, given the resource limitations that we face.
Last week a group of representatives from five teachers' associations came to OMELCO to present their views on this aspect of the report. They stated their support for the concept of whole day schooling, but raised objections to the mixed-mode system. They were of the opinion that such a system might not fully benefit the children being converted to whole day, might inconvenience parents, but most important of all, might cause operational problems to the teaching staff, and irreparable damage on the morale of the teaching profession as a whole. They also asked for a deferment of the deadline to the consultation period.
Having considered the various points put forward, and having balanced them against the desirability of whole day schooling for at least the top tiers of all
our primary schools, I have come to the view that there is ample time between now and 1996 for many of these operational problems to be resolved. Provided that the time frame is firmly adhered to, the Education Department should try as far as possible to assist teachers to dispel their concerns. Similarly I do not think it is necessary to extend the consultation period for this purpose. We have more than five years between now and the time whole day school for Primary V and VI becomes a reality. We have waited too long. Any further delay would be intolerable.
The package of recommendations in this report marks the beginning of a lot of hard work, and will have far-reaching effects in a number of areas. The area that demands most urgent attention is that which relates to the teaching profession, which will be the subject of the next report of the Commission, and work is already under way to tackle it. In the meantime I call upon all who are interested to put forward their views on this report, so that it can be acted upon as soon as possible.
Sir, I so move.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR CHEONG: Sir, a sound education system is the basis upon which the advancement of any territory has to be based. Hong Kong is certainly no different and it is gratifying that for the past decade or so the Government has seen fit to devote much of its resources to the advancement of our educational system. It is also gratifying to note that the Education Commission has laboriously laboured at various issues involving education culminating in this fourth report. There has been really much debate on the contents of the fourth report. I would simply focus on two aspects. The first aspect is on the question of language in education. Language in education, as Mrs CHOW just said, is a controversial and complex problem to which there is no perfect solution. Yet, the Commission, of which I am an ex-offico member, has really tried to provide a coherent framework in which language reforms may be implemented responsively and successfully.
There is a strong lobby in our community calling for Chinese to be made the medium of instruction. While I recognize the benefits of education in the mother tongue for the majority of our students, I believe it of crucial importance to Hong Kong's future that English be accorded a proper place in our education system. Let me
explain why. Hong Kong, as we all know, is an international, business, financial
and trading centre. Millions of faxes, telexes and phone calls or letters are made every day in English. And as a result, millions of dollars flow into Hong Kong underpinning Hong Kong's stability and prosperity. Unless we can communicate effectively with our trading partners and clients overseas, our businesses, our banks, our trading partners will certainly suffer, and so too will Hong Kong.
We are concerned in the business community that English standards are falling. This must not be allowed to continue. I therefore support wholeheartedly the recommendations in Education Commission Report No. 4 for the improvement of English standards. These include bridging courses for Secondary I and Secondary III students, and for those Chinese-medium students pursuing tertiary education. Of more immediate relevance to the workplace, I support the proposals to give school leavers at Secondary V and Secondary VII vocational English courses which will help them gain the language requirements needed in their chosen careers. The Vocational Training Council, of which I am the chairman, of course, will provide training such as English in hotel keeping and tourism at present. But much more needs to be done and I would like to offer here today the support and participation of the Vocational Training Council in devising and running appropriate courses in co-operation with
Government and the business community. No doubt, I am sure, other tertiary institutions in Hong Kong, such as the Hong Kong Polytechnic and the universities, will do the same. I believe these measures will go quite a long way in providing employers with the employees who have reached the English standards that our businesses require.
The second aspect of the Education Commission Report that I would like to raise is that of behaviour in schools among our school children. I believe the Commission is right in saying that all school children may need some counselling and guidance at some point in their school career. I would therefore in principle support measures proposed by the Commission to reinforce and to make available more school-based
counselling services.
Nevertheless, we must not forget that children are at school during their formative years. Teachers are not the only ones therefore entrusted with the task of ensuring that our children become responsible members of our society. In my view, nowadays, far too many people, even in this community, wrongly advocate that everything be done by Government and everything be responsible by Government. It is time that we as parents and as citizens recognize that we have an even more important role to play. Schools, run by Government, financed by Government and with teachers
basically subvented by Government, do a great deal but they can only do so much. It is incumbent upon us, parents, citizens, to build in our own children a strong foundation of morals and a proper sense of duty. I would therefore like to urge parents to participate more actively in activities involving co-operation between teachers and parents. I would also like to urge the Education Department and school management authorities to encourage the formation of more parent teacher associations. I believe that only with parents and teachers working together can we prepare our young people to make their rightful contribution to society.
Sir, I support the motion.
MR CHAN (in Cantonese): Sir, it is our common goal to improve the quality of education. The Education Commission has conducted a very comprehensive review of the implementation of nine years of free education. Both the Wan Chai District Board which I represent and I myself support generally all the recommendations contained in its fourth report, which we think should be adopted in full in order to achieve the desired effect of improving the quality of education. I would therefore like to comment on only a few points.
The education system in Hong Kong needs to be constantly reviewed and changes have to be introduced whenever necessary, especially in the area of curriculum development. For this reason I support the establishment of a Curriculum Development Institute, which should be set up as an independent body like the Hong Kong Examinations Authority, and not as a division of the Education Department, because government departments should take no part in curriculum development.
The report suggests that examinations be replaced by target-related assessments, and describes the many merits of such a proposal. I find myself totally convinced. However, the Commission seems to lack the determination to fully implement the proposal, as it suggests that the issue should be further examined. I think such a constructive recommendation should be implemented with greater resolution. To assess the progress of students on the basis of clearly set targets at different stages of education is in fact very much in line with the purposeful and enterprising spirit prevalent in a commercial city like Hong Kong. At the moment, parents do not know the targets and requirements of the curriculum, and therefore do not know how to help their children. Very often, they are expecting too much from their children, thereby exerting unnecessary pressure on them. I earnestly hope that the Commission will
promptly examine and implement this system in full, so that all students can acquire knowledge and skills at a progress best suited to their abilities.
The report will certainly serve a positive purpose in addressing the various issues pertaining to education in Hong Kong. In particular, it will help a great deal in tackling behavioral problems and those concerning low learning ability, a fall in the standard of both the Chinese and English languages and suitability of the curriculum.
Regarding the medium of instruction, I fully support the elimination of mixed-code teaching. As for language streaming, I accept this as an interim measure to solve a difficult and long-standing problem. To say the least, it is questionable whether teachers can teach in English that is readily understood by their students. I do not favour the idea of compelling schools to switch to Chinese-medium instruction. They should be given an option as to which medium of instruction to use according to the language ability of their teachers. In this regard, schools must be frank with the parents instead of being pretentious. On the other hand, parents should also be given the freedom of choice. At present, parents do not have any choice at all.
Proficiency in English is required for admission to universities. Even clerical jobs require candidates to possess a reasonably good standard of English. So "English" is the only choice they have. Language streaming will help solve the problem of mixed-code teaching, which is a teaching problem and not one caused by the wrongdoing on the part of the parents. I would therefore like to make two further recommendations. First, to introduce a second streaming exercise at the end of Secondary II; and second, to reform and strengthen the English courses for Chinese-medium classes. I should like to elaborate on these points below.
According to the Commission's recommendation, the second streaming exercise should be launched at the end of Secondary III. I think it should take place a year earlier than that. The advantage of my proposal is that parents do not have to press their children to be streamed into English-medium classes during Primary VI, for they still have a chance to do so two years later. While remaining in Chinese-medium classes at Secondary I and II, students will have two years' time to enhance their standard of English before transferring to English-medium classes. Furthermore, if students were allowed to switch from one medium to another after Secondary II, they would still have three years, that is, one extra year compared to that recommended by the Commission, to make adjustments and prepare for the Certificate of Education
Examination. According to my proposal, students can withhold their decision as to whether to make a switch until the end of Secondary II. Consequently, this will not only help achieve the objective of students at Secondary I and II levels, but also help remove public criticism that changing the medium of instruction at the end of Primary VI would be unfair to primary school students.
A further recommendation I would like to put forward is that the English courses for Chinese-medium classes should be reformed and strengthened. Although the Report proposes the enhancement of English courses at Primary V and VI levels and the provision of a bridging course during Secondary I, no mention has been made of how the teaching of English and English courses in Chinese-medium classes can be enhanced. The additional teachers and other resources now available are certainly inadequate to maintain the standard of English in Chinese-medium classes. I therefore suggest that the English courses for these classes be innovated and reinforced so as to ensure that, among other things, no primary and secondary students on Chinese-medium classes, who use English as the second language, will be subjected to teaching methods which adopt English as the first language. At present, both the teaching methods and the curriculum are highly unsuitable. Revising a new set of English courses for Chinese-medium classes is a task which brooks no delay. Only when schools are offering better and more vigorous target-related English courses, and when Chinese-medium classes are producing the same high-standard students as their English counterparts, can the education system be finally reckoned as really giving the parents a choice. Only then can the system be said to be treating parents fairly. When the time comes, language streaming will no longer be needed.
Finally, I support the other recommendations in the report, and hope that all those concerned will strive to solve the many technical problems involved. Since all the recommendations are interlinked with one another, they should be implemented in full so as to achieve the desired objective of improving the quality of education. Unless there are strong objections against the report's principles, we should all strive for financial support from the Government in order to bring about improvements in education as planned.
With these remarks, Sir, I support the motion.
MR CHUNG (in Cantonese): Sir, the Hong Kong Government has laid down a number of targets in the development of education in Hong Kong for the 1990s which inter alia
include the continued implementation of the nine-year free and compulsory education; the provision of sufficient places at the senior secondary level and in technical institutes for 95% of Secondary III leavers; and a 150% increase in the provision of first-degree places in tertiary institutions by 1995, that is a growth in such places from the existing 7% of the appropriate age group to not less than 18%. The Government's educational strategy is backed up by adequate finances and ever
increasing provisions for such purposes. Many young people and parents are looking forward to the realization of these targets as scheduled.
The Education Commission Report No. 4 has confirmed that Government's current educational targets are measures of a sound development strategy. In my view, however, the main theme of today's debate should be the methodology to improve the quality of education on the basis of this comprehensive and systematic strategy.
It appears that the report has expressed much concern about the English standard of students between Primary VI and Secondary III and submitted that the core of the problem lies in the inappropriate use of media of instruction generally. Therefore, the Commission has put forward the following recommendation: "It is necessary for students to be grouped according to which medium of instruction is most appropriate for them. Students will need to be placed in Chinese-medium classes or English medium classes on the basis of their ability to learn effectively in that medium."
The Commission has proposed a massive and complicated framework for Hong Kong's language in education policy, which will provide assessment instruments to determine which students should receive English-medium, Chinese-medium or two-medium instruction respectively.
As outlined in the report, under the proposed streaming policy, schools in Hong Kong will be divided into three types, namely Chinese-medium schools, English-medium schools and two-medium schools. These schools will be free to choose for themselves which medium of instruction they would like to use. Parents will be free to choose any of the types of school for their children and they can also change their options subsequently.
The problem is as the report has pointed out that it is the objective of the Commission to encourage schools to adopt Chinese, the mother tongue of local students, as the medium of instruction, but all of a sudden it has also proposed to classify all schools in Hong Kong into three categories according to their media of instruction
while allowance will be made to both the school authorities and parents to choose or alter their options freely. I just do not understand the rationale behind this policy.
As mentioned above, schools will be divided into different categories with the introduction of the proposed assessment instruments. Under the existing structure and ways of operation of our community, I believe the proposed streaming policy will definitely turn English into a main-stream medium of instruction and "mother tongue teaching" will eventually stream to nowhere. The report also submitted that the use of mixed-code in many schools has obviously led to degradation in academic achievement.
If this is the rationale behind the proposed "streaming policy", I would like to draw your attention to some other factual data contained in the report. As recorded in the Second Report of the Commission, a research project jointly conducted by the University of Hong Kong and the Commission has indicated that after a 20-minute lesson was given to 1 296 Secondary III students in 10 schools, tests in English and Chinese versions were administered to measure the students' understanding. The research have indicated that some 30% or so of students can perform effectively in English. Another 30% or so have severe difficulty and the remainder come somewhere between. Among the findings of the research project, the most interesting one is that only a tiny percentage of less than 3% preferred monolingual English presentation, about a half preferred monolingual Chinese oral presentation, while the remainder preferred bilingual modes of presentation. As such, how could the Commission lay the blame on "mixed-code teaching" for the degradation of academic achievement?
As a matter of fact, bilingual teaching may have the same effect as directly using one language in teaching so long as the teaching method is good and examinations are reasonably offered to the students. For example, the teaching of English may be conducted in the way of translation teaching.
The Education Commission Report No. 4 seems to have neglected whether there is a greater fall in students' standard of Chinese than that of English. Will it make us feel that our Government tends to slip back to the attitude of "regarding English as superior to Chinese"? If the report is considered to give us an impression that the Commission is gradually deviating from local culture or it lacks co-ordination with the social status of Hong Kong before and after 1997, our educational policy may turn to be a misleading guidance for millions of our young people.
In my opinion, whether English, Chinese or both languages are adopted as the media
of instruction in school, it will be acceptable so long as the media adopted are advantageous to the students as well as our social development. However, the authorities concerned should formulate a fundamental policy setting out specific standards for schools in adopting medium of instruction and provide definition to the first and second languages. If we advocate the use of mother tongue as the medium of instruction on one hand and offer options of other modes to be chosen freely on the other, this may not only cause confusion to our education system, but also far-reaching impact on the future of our community.
Since both Chinese and English are official languages in Hong Kong, bilingual teaching is therefore most suitable for our education and it will not result in the problem of "smattering" standard of students in both languages. If only one language has to be chosen for teaching, measure should be available to help students from English-medium background to learn Chinese well and vice versa for those from
Chinese-medium background. It does not matter whether or not the "streaming system" is implemented in schools insofar as both languages are developed in parallel.
We learn for the purpose of application. Our community must be adaptable to environmental changes and we must have an approved system for various requirements in order to enhance the standards of both Chinese and English. If the standard of Chinese is still ignored in academic entry qualifications and job requirements, there will not have any practical bearing even though bilingual education is successfully implemented.
Practicable and positive educational reforms require a lot of trained teachers. All we have to do is to raise the pay of teachers to a reasonable level, to improve their working environment and career prospects, to show esteem for their status as well as to promote social respect for the profession and to implement a training programme for increasing full-time teachers based on the needs of our educational policy.
The report has also mentioned in particular the "problem students" and the proliferation of triad-related activities to schools. Special attention should be paid to this problem. However, I am of the opinion that only a few such black spots have been detected among schools at present. They are merely individual cases and the phenomenon has not been rampant. I believe the problem lies not in the students in general but individual ones under bad influences outside schools. Provided we continue to promote civic education in a positive manner, to enhance guidance and
counselling for students in schools and to strengthen liaison between schools and parents, I am sure that good spirit can be developed in schools.
Sir, the development of education should be planned on a long-term basis. Any changes in educational policy should be carefully considered in the interest of development of Hong Kong.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Sir, the aim of Education Commission Report No. 4 is to seek to improve the quality of education at primary and secondary levels and relatively speaking, the report is comprehensive in its contents. Primary and secondary education is an important stage in life, just like the nursery stage of a seeding which is crucial to the future growth of a plant. Education serves the social need to train useful manpower for the community and this should form the basis for the formulation of education policy by the Government.
Regarding Education Commission Report No. 4, I have two main points to make.
First, on the issue of language in education, it is practical and essential that both Chinese and English should be used as media of instruction as Hong Kong is an international centre of finance and trade as well as a city where the majority of the population are Chinese. Although it may not be easy for students to be proficient in both languages, they should at least be able to master one of the languages and have a good knowledge about the other. The Education Commission Report No. 4 has recommended that assessments should be carried out at Primary VI to determine the ability of students to learn in Chinese or English so that parents will be in a position to select secondary schools best suited for their children. The information provided by the assessments will enable secondary schools to choose the appropriate medium of instruction or proportion of English or Chinese classes to suit the language
achievements of their student intake.
However, a mixed-code teaching within the same class should be avoided as far as possible and the medium of instruction should correspond with the language of the textbooks. Hence, it will save teachers the trouble of overcoming the difficulties in translation as well as the time in translation. The students can also be trained to develop the ability to use a single language to master the knowledge of a
specialized subject. The report also mentions the students can transfer to Chinese-medium classes or English-medium classes when necessary. This measure allows greater flexibility for students to learn through a different language medium in their academic development. I wish to emphasize that the prejudice of students and parents in "attaching great importance to English and undervaluing the use of Chinese" should be dispelled. This line of thinking has no doubt been a long-standing concept in our society as a result of our historical background. Nevertheless, as the local Chinese people are gradually assuming higher status in politics and economy, both Chinese and English are used on many formal occasions or in official document, in particular with the approach of the reversion of sovereignty to China in 1997, Chinese language has become all the more important. To the students, mastering either of the Chinese and English languages will bring them a good future all the same. To meet the demand for manpower arising from our social and economic development, the Government intends to expand the provision of first-degree places. There will be better opportunities for secondary students to pursue higher education. At present only one out of three matriculants is able to take up first-degree course at one of our tertiary education institutions, but by 1994-95 four out of five matriculants will be able to do so. This is a piece of good news to secondary students and their parents, no matter what medium of instruction they have selected.
Secondly, I would like to comment on the behavioural problems of students in schools. Parents and the public in general have expressed concern about the conduct of young people in schools. The traditional Chinese education principles lay equal emphasis on morality and intellect. I mentioned this point in my speech during the Policy Debate in the year before last. It is stated in the report that the fact that there is no evidence of penetration by triads into schools does not necessarily mean that school children are not involved in triad activities outside schools. According to statistics, the number of incidents of suspected involvement in triad activities reported in secondary schools has been in decline over the past five years. This is achieved through the concerted efforts of the school authorities, parents,
relevant government departments and the community at large. Despite such success, we should in no way slacken our efforts. Crime prevention is only a passive approach. A more positive measure is to foster a sense of moral integrity in the mind of our young during their primary and secondary schooling. This aspect has scarcely been mentioned in the report. Although a sound learning system can help students
concentrate on their studies, there is no substitute for moral education which is to nurture young people with a correct attitude of life and a good sense of value. The concepts of fair competition, mutual co-operation and benefits should be promoted
in our society, while selfish behaviour of benefitting oneself at the expense of others or enriching oneself by misappropriating public funds should be objected to. Good moral sense and good character is built upon a strict and impartial system of reward and punishment in schools. Well behaved students will be rewarded while
rule-breaking students will be punished. Reward should of course be the key, with punishment serving as a supplement. While it is easy to consider the methods of reward, it will be difficult to decide on the appropriate kind of punishment as some people think that any form of punishment will be detrimental to the physical and mental well being of students. I do not see it that way. Over accommodating and caring will encourage wrong doings. The issue of whether the provisions in connexion with corporal punishment under the existing Education Regulations should be abolished is thus open to question. If corporal punishment is to be abolished, should students violating school regulations be punished and how should they be punished? The
demerit system and the discretion to dismiss a student are of course some means of punishment, but unlike corporal punishment, they will leave bad records in their resume, causing them mental harassment. For students, corporal punishment is on the contrary a lighter alternative. Bodily pain can subside after a short period of time, yet it may give the students concerned a long lasting lesson. As long as teachers can strictly adhere to Regulations 58 and 59 of the Education Regulations and at the same time reason things out with the students in question, then light corporal
punishment can help students understand and correct their mistakes. I therefore have reservation about the proposed abolition of corporal punishment.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR HUI (in Cantonese): Sir, in 1979 the Hong Kong Government introduced a system providing nine years of free and compulsory education, which was considered a remarkable achievement at that time. However, after almost 12 years of development, the compulsory system, which has never been reviewed all these years, is found to be directly or indirectly related to quite a few educational and social problems. In fact, in the light of Hong Kong's present economic success and living standard, the system of nine years of free and compulsory education is certainly out of touch with the needs of this important era because the emphasis is still on fulfilling educational objectives in terms of quantity rather than on improving quality. It is regrettable that the Education Commission has not reviewed the system in its fourth report.
As we all know, the greatest failing of our education system is that education has become a kind of tool. Under an established policy and a prescribed sense of value, the Government selects through this system an elite group of students to receive higher education. These elite students, who are motivated by the "promise of monetary gain from a good schooling", are groomed for securing prestigious and well-paid jobs in future, while those who are not so chosen can be expected to fill only second-class posts available in various trades and professions.
Under the influence of utilitarian purposes, the students are generally subjected to the "cramming" method of education. The findings of a survey conducted by the Boys' and Girls' Clubs Association of Hong Kong last year show that Primary III to VI students in Hong Kong spend on average two hours and one and a half hours
respectively after school on doing homework and studying textbooks. In addition, many students have to attend remedial classes or do supplementary exercises. This illustrates that local school children lay more emphasis on textbook learning than their counterparts in other advanced countries. This mode of learning has long
deprived our students of the childhood simplicity they should have.
In addition, curricula that are too academically orientated and detached from real life are regarded by students as boring. And an education policy based on the mistaken belief that English proficiency can be enhanced by adopting English as the instruction medium only adds to students' difficulty in comprehension and expression of ideas. Under the circumstances, many students abhor school life as reflected by the increasing number of cases involving deviant behaviour in primary and secondary schools and an ascending drop-out rate year after year. What is worse, the many examinations and tests under the compulsory system will only increase the chances of failure and frustration for students. This will seriously impair their self confidence and self-esteem, to such an extent that they may be unable to shoulder greater responsibilities and solve their own problems in the future.
Sir, if the situation described above is to be changed thoroughly, departments responsible for formulating and implementing the education policy must tackle the four problem areas below at the root and adopt various improvement measures:
(1) One of the main reasons why most students do not have a craving for knowledge and feel great anxiety and frustration is that the general curriculum is either outdated or detached from real life experience. And over-emphasis on rote memorization of facts under the pressure of public examinations adds to the burden
of students. I therefore endorse the idea of maintaining a balance between curriculum development and the public examinations system. Moreover, in devising improved curricula, the first and foremost consideration must be students' daily life. Particular attention should be paid to meeting their interests and needs on the one hand, and ensuring that adjustment problems are minimized as students progress to higher levels of education on the other. I also support the view that subjects with related areas of learning should be integrated, in order to help students avoid spending too much time on minor subjects.
On the other hand, as the Activity Approach has been found to be contributing substantially towards increasing students' interest in learning, the Administration should provide more facilities and teachers to promote this teaching method so that it will be gradually adopted by all classes up to Form III level. I also support the upgrading of the Curriculum Development Council to ensure that its membership includes professionals such as educational psychologists, social workers and
teachers who know the needs and progress of students very well.
(2) Educationalists and social workers have always advocated the use of one's mother-tongue as the best medium of instruction. Regrettably, the Government, sponsoring bodies and parents have been shifting the responsibility onto one another, thus hindering the introduction of mother-tongue teaching. I think the Government must take the lead in completely eliminating the current practice of attaching more importance to English than to Chinese, such as in civil service recruitments and in our examination system. This will ensure that students graduating from both English and Chinese secondary schools will be fairly treated. Only then will mother-tongue education obtain the support of parents and schools. The Administration should also make available additional resources and teachers to assist school to use Chinese as the medium of instruction in classes below Form III. At the senior secondary level, the standard of teaching English as a second language should be enhanced to meet the needs of Hong Kong as an international city. Moreover, we should not overlook the contribution of publishers, and efforts should be made to encourage them to produce more textbooks and reference books of good quality in Chinese.
Turning now to the Education Commission's recommendations on language streaming, I am afraid I cannot give them my support. This is not only because such a proposal will procrastinate the timing for a complete switch to mother-tongue education, but also because, given an environment in which English is considered superior to Chinese, the approach will have the negative effect of forcing students
to face cruel competition prematurely.
(3) Students with deviant behaviour or those who are unmotivated will definitely need counselling. Therefore, I support the adoption of the Whole School Approach as recommended by the Education Commission. However, we must first of all improve the teacher to student ratio, increase the number of Student Guidance Officers and provide them with the assistance of other professionals such as educational
psychologists and social workers. Without taking these steps, the recommended approach will be nothing but castles in the air. In secondary schools, the role and function of school social workers having been long established, steps should be taken to gradually improve the present manning ratio of one social worker for every 3 000 students to that of 1 for 2 000. We should also encourage school social workers to take more initiative in co-operating with school teachers to develop counselling programmes according to students' needs, rather than just handling cases referred to them.
(4) Undeniably, it may not be suitable for some students to receive conventional education. The Administration should therefore provide adequate pre-vocational and special skills training places for these students. In this connection, attention should be paid to the following points: (a) such courses must cater to the needs of the students, especially female students, as well as the needs of our society and the labour market; (b) based on the principle of pragmatism, emphasis should also be placed on the aspect of moral education; (c) counselling services should be
adequately provided; (d) the qualifications of students who have completed these courses should be duly recognized and (e) opportunities should be accorded to students completing these courses to receive conventional education or vocational training in tertiary institutions.
Sir, no other investment in our society has ever been more valuable and meaningful than that in education. This is particularly important for Hong Kong where the only available form of natural resources is manpower. However, in face of the transfer of sovereignty and the increasingly keen competition in the international market, it would be disappointing and worrying if departments responsible for formulating and implementing education policies are still unable to take resolute steps to revamp our basic education system. As the saying goes, lofty towers are all built up from the ground. May I appeal to the Administration to provide as soon as possible the necessary resources to reform our basic education system and to prepare our younger generation for even greater challenges ahead.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, the Education Commission Report No. 4 looks in depth at several areas of critical importance to the educational system in Hong Kong, and it presents a number of worthwhile proposals for improving that system. But, I would encourage the Education Commission to take a broader view and formulate even clearer goals for a long-term educational plan that takes into account the needs of our students and our community as a whole.
One of the most promising recommendations in the report is the new approach towards the curriculum. The willingness to adapt the curriculum to fit the different needs of students will certainly assist students in learning at a pace most suited to them. Additionally, I welcome the call to examine the secondary school curriculum, and I hope that the revised curriculum will not force students to be so narrowly stratified into an arts or sciences track at too early an age. As schools reform their curricula, I encourage them to put greater emphasis on civic education so that our students will be more ready to contribute to the civic development of Hong Kong.
Hand in hand with the new flexibility in the curriculum is a welcome willingness to test the students according to attainment targets and criterion-referencing principles. Such testing should help develop more confidence among students by showing them more clearly the progress they have made in their studies.
I also welcome the recommendation for more unisessional primary schools. Clearly, our primary schools will be able to offer a wider range of educational and extra-curricular opportunities if they switch to a full-day schedule. As the report details, the switch to unisessions will cost taxpayers additional money, but I believe the money will be well spent. But here, I should declare my interest as the father of a nine-year-old boy studying Primary IV. Clearly, the longer he is kept at school, the more peace of mind there will be for my wife and me.
If these recommendations then are well-thought out, but we must ensure that there will be sufficient resources to implement them. Though they have been somewhat overshadowed by the debate on language education, we must not underestimate their importance and we should press for their earliest implementation.
On the most difficult question -- that of the language of instruction -- the report is correct to condemn the use of mixed-code Chinese/English teaching. Such mixed-code teaching makes it more difficult for students to learn their subjects, and it produces students who are fluent in neither Chinese nor English.
The report correctly points out the benefits to our students of learning in their mother tongue. Not only is it essential that our students be fluent in written and spoken Chinese, but learning in the Chinese language will also clearly help develop their cognitive skills and their confidence in their academic abilities. Students will be better able to participate in classroom discussions, and it should be easier for them to understand the subjects they are studying.
At the same time, we all realize the importance of a fluent English-speaking population to the economic future of Hong Kong. English is the international language of business, and if Hong Kong wishes to remain the heart of the Pacific Rim -- a truly international financial, trade, business, and communications centre - - then our people must be able to speak English. And as Hong Kong becomes increasingly an international service centre, where more and more service-oriented jobs replace manufacturing jobs, fluency in English will become even more important.
It should be stressed, moreover, that the need for English is not only for those who will pursue university and graduate degrees in Hong Kong and abroad. For, we will have an increasing need within our service economy to have persons at all levels who are able to communicate in English -- from secretaries to bank clerks and
import-export staff. We are not a mighty economic power like Japan or the United States so that people from all over the world will come to us; no, we must reach out and create opportunities for ourselves; and to do so, we must speak international language of business.
Parents recognize the economic imperatives of their children learning English, and they also know that the English language ability of the children will continue to be important when they enter universities both in Hong Kong and overseas. Many parents, therefore, will continue to place a high value on English language education.
The report does not adequately address this central question: how do we best meet the educational and social needs of our students while at the same time ensure that the citizens of Hong Kong have the English language skills to maintain Hong Kong as an international economic centre?
The authors of the report may not be to blame for this shortcoming, for it seems that they were hamstrung in their study. Since they had to work within existing financial constraints, they did not have the latitude of studying other options which might entail substantial additional expense. Working within these constraints, there is little doubt that Chinese language teaching is more effective than the current mixed-code system.
Yet, Sir, if we are to deal with the extraordinarily difficult question of the language of education, we must be willing to take a step back and decide on our goals. The Education Commission should take the lead in formulating our long-term goals, which is something this report has failed to do. Then we must examine those goals and decide if we as a community are willing to spend the additional resources to attain them. Such an examination is all the more timely in view of the Government's plans to increase significantly the number of degree places in our tertiary institutions and I regret that this report has not provided satisfactory answers as to how to prepare our students adequately for all these new tertiary places.
In the absence of clear goals and in the absence of a community consensus on the level of resources we are willing to commit to education, we cannot chart our path. If we take the approach of the report -- namely that all reforms proposed must fit into existing resource constraints -- then we are severely hampering the usefulness of the entire exercise from its very outset. It is only when we have decided on our goals and our financial resources that we can decide what steps we should take in relation to teacher training, teacher salaries, the development of new teaching
methods, unisessional primary schools, class size, and so forth.
Sir, there is little doubt that our community wants to educate our students to become fluent both in English and Chinese. Such a lofty goal clearly will require very substantial resources; yet we as a community must first decide whether we are willing to expend those resources.
And in reaching a decision on these all important questions, Sir, I cannot over-emphasize that education is perhaps the most worthwhile investment that we as a community can ever make for our future.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR LI: Sir, as with the three previous reports of the Education Commission, the report before us today confirms the inability of the Education Commission -- as presently organized -- to offer timely, effective and forward-looking answers to the territory's educational needs.
The concept of an Education Commission was put forward by the Llewellyn Panel in 1982. The Panel envisioned a co-ordinating body which would be able "to bring to the Governor-in-Council consolidated advice on the needs of and priorities for the education system as a whole and the most equitable and practical responses to them."
But somehow that vision has been lost. The Government has created a Commission which lacks the status, freedom and authority needed to rise above professional, departmental and sectoral politics, and to speak frankly and openly regarding what measures would be in the best interests of both Hong Kong and its students.
The Education Commission's fourth report, like the previous three, reeks of compromise and self-censorship. The focus is backward instead of forward. And difficult decisions are deferred for further study.
The net effect: status quo is preserved, and vested interests are protected. Who are the losers? The students. Who pays the price? The people of Hong Kong.
In addition to higher status and greater authority, the Education Commission needs focus. Its ambits and goals have never been effectively defined.
The Commission has meandered from issue to issue, pondering solutions to the decade-old problems and prescribing remedies which will take several years to implement and many more years to yield any benefits.
As a result, the turn of the century will see Hong Kong still preoccupied with the problems of the early 1980s, rather than building for the future. Over the years, the Commission has concentrated its energies on tinkering with the "means" of the education system, without a clear perception of the "ends" the system should achieve. Such an approach is most dangerous.
Hong Kong's competitors are not looking backwards. Their eyes are firmly fixed
on the needs of the 21st century, and they are willing to commit the resources to meet those needs.
Singapore devotes a larger proportion of its annual budget to education. Singapore and Taiwan have a larger proportion of students in post-secondary and tertiary education.
Both spend more money per student on computer education and, not surprisingly, both have a higher ratio of information technology graduates, a field which the Hong Kong Government itself has said is absolutely vital to the territory's future.
Thus, we see our competitors charging into the 21st century, while we dither.
Rather than addressing issues willy-nilly, the Commission should channel its energies into devising a comprehensive educational strategy which would prepare Hong Kong for the 21st century. It is within such a framework that important issues such as curriculum development, student guidance and the medium of instruction should be discussed.
The education system should not be judged by the processes it uses, but by the results it achieves.
From the views expressed to me by the members of my constituency, there is no doubt that proficiency in both English and Chinese has fallen. If this trend continues, Sir, we shall be unable to maintain our position as a major international trade and finance centre.
What does Hong Kong need from its education system?
Economic competitiveness is an issue I have raised in this Council on many occasions. I have stressed the Government's key role and responsibility in actively preserving and promoting the territory's competitiveness.
Maintaining this competitiveness should and must be a key goal of the Government. This pertains to all government policies, including education.
To introduce economic competitiveness as a key goal of the Government's education policy is not to dehumanize the student. To argue that the Government's education
policy must take into account what job skills will be needed to preserve Hong Kong's competitive edge is not to put the needs and wants of business above the needs and wants of the individual.
On the contrary, the two are both interdependent and complementary.
Business needs and wants "whole" individuals -- individuals who can think for themselves, who are motivated and well disciplined, and who have a strong sense of their civic responsibilities. These are the type of people who will guarantee Hong Kong's continued success.
The students, in turn, need to acquire the skill and knowledge necessary to become responsible, productive and self-confident citizens, to succeed and prosper, and to realize their full potential as human beings.
Without a doubt, this is what every parent wants for their children. Whether the students themselves adopt these same goals is heavily dependent on the education system.
Is our education system motivating our children towards becoming the best persons they can be, towards becoming well-rounded, productive members of the community, towards realizing their full potential?
The members of the Education Commission deserve praise for their advocacy of student-centred education. To reform our education system along this vein would be a giant step in the right direction. Such a step is desperately needed. The sooner, the better.
Regrettably, the Commission's recommendations fall short of mandating and devising a speedy, whole-scale move in this direction.
What kind of education are we giving our children? Are we fitting them to operate in tomorrow's society or to seek yesterday's merit badges?
Will any of the reforms proposed in ECR4 -- or indeed in any of the reports -- make our children better individuals, more productive members of society, better employees or entrepreneurs?
Will any of the reforms in ECR4 -- or any of the reports -- make Hong Kong more competitive internationally? Has economic competitiveness been considered at all?
For that matter, how can the Education Commission make any recommendations without a clear perception of what skills today's students will need to lead happy and productive lives in tomorrow's world?
In this report, the Education Commission admits that they do not know what Hong Kong's needs are in terms of English and Chinese "practitioners". And yet, the Commission proceeds to make recommendations which will have a direct bearing on the education system's ability to fulfil those needs.
As far as language is concerned, if economic competitiveness is the goal, Hong Kong should aim to be bilingual -- in fact, it should probably aim to be trilingual. Students should leave the school system "fluent" -- not "proficient", which is a relative target -- in Cantonese, English and Putonghua.
But this issue as well as the issue of the medium of instruction are both moot. Why? Because we do not have the human resources -- the teachers -- needed to implement successfully any significant improvements in the current system.
The teacher problem has been evident since the beginning of the Commission process -- indeed since the days of the Llewellyn Report. And, despite the major impediment this problem presents to any and all efforts of educational reform, the Commission has chosen to defer discussion of this all-important issue.
Yes, the teacher problem will be the subject of the Commission's next report. But, clearly, the cart has been put before the horse.
At this juncture, I would urge the Government to take stock of the Commission process and to evaluate if the Commission is fulfilling its purpose.
Measures which would improve the Commission process include:
-- elevating the status of the Commission and expanding its authority; -- defining more clearly the Commission's goals and terms of reference; and
-- providing for more extensive, formal representation of the private sector on the Commission.
The first initiative would promote a freer exchange of views and ideas. The second would give the Commission much-needed focus, while the third would provide the Commission with the direct and constant private-sector input needed to identify the skills we should be teaching our children.
Something must also be done to expedite the Commission's work. It is obvious that a single commission cannot cope with the huge job of simultaneously monitoring all aspects of the education system.
The Commission has yet to address many of the key issues and problems which were identified over eight years ago by the Llewellyn Panel. And, in that time, new problems have arisen which neither the Commission nor anyone else has properly addressed.
Hong Kong cannot afford to lose more time. Viable goals must be set for the education system -- quickly and effectively. Decade-old issues which have not yet been addressed must be tackled. New reform measures must be debated and implemented, and the progress of the past initiatives must be reviewed and analysed.
Clearly, this burden is too much for the Commission to bear alone. A possible solution would be to establish a multiple task-force system under and co-ordinated by the Commission. These task forces would work in parallel, simultaneously moving ahead the many reforms needed to improve the education system.
To be sure, it is more tidy to settle each issue in turn. Unfortunately Hong Kong cannot freeze time.
Every day spent pondering what must be done is another day lost in motivating today's students, in teaching them properly and in giving them the skills and knowledge they will need -- that Hong Kong needs -- to survive and prosper in the 21st century.
Goals that we should pursue in our education system -- some of which are discussed in ECR4 -- include:
-- teaching every student the three literacies of language, mathematics and technology;
-- adopting a more student-centred approach to instruction;
-- setting high standards for everyone involved and finding effective means of measuring against those standards;
-- giving school staffs greater autonomy in the running of their schools and developing means of rewarding schools for success;
-- placing greater emphasis on staff development, on modern teacher training and on in-service re-training for teachers whose skills are outdated; and -- wherever possible --
-- utilizing technology to raise the educational productivity of both teachers and students.
These goals are achievable -- if we set our minds to it and if we channel our energies and efforts properly.
I have great respect for the chairperson and members of the Education Commission. But I harbour strong reservations about the efficacy of the Commission process with which they have been handcuffed and muzzled.
Sir, it is with these remarks that I reluctantly support the motion.
MR POON CHI-FAI (in Cantonese): Sir, Rome was not built in a day, so is education which is a long-term investment. High quality, free and compulsory education provided to all would not only hold the key to the rise and fall of a nation as well as the prosperity and progress of a community, but it would also serve as a major instrument in the realization of social justice and equity. All along, many drawbacks have been existing in the education system of Hong Kong which had attracted much criticism. Outcries have been made by people well aware of the issue in the community urging the Government to look into these problems and find out practicable and fundamental solutions to improve our education system by strengthening its merits and eliminating its demerits. The Education Commission Report No. 4 recently
published by the authorities concerned is meant to mark a crucial step towards improving the education system in Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, the recommendations on educational reforms proposed in the report should have a significant impact on the development of our education system. As members of the community, we should examine these recommendations carefully, consider their feasibilities, analyse their positive and negative effects and express our views on them earnestly. Before rendering support to today's motion urging members of the public to comment on the report, I would like to give a brief remark to the report as follows:
Mother tongue education and streaming system
Sir, Report No. 4 has pointed out repeatedly that the majority of students will learn more effectively through their mother tongue than through English. It also stated that each student should be educated through a medium likely to lead to a maximum cognitive and academic development. In fact, the findings of a lot of
research projects and studies have clearly indicated that the use of mother tongue as the medium of instruction is conducive to the students in their process of learning relating to comprehension, raising questions, expression of opinions and training programmes designed to enhance their thinking, confidence and interest. Sir, for the overall interest of the community, I just really do not understand why the
Administration has not demonstrated its firm determination as it did in the implementation of the nine-year compulsory education by promoting mother tongue education through some compulsory measures. If the Administration has really attached importance to the Chinese language and is prepared to achieve the objective of mother tongue education in full on a long-term basis, why it tends to adopt the streaming system which will rob certain students of their chances to identify the cultural heritage of the Chinese language? Sir, the adoption of mother tongue instruction does not necessarily bring about a degradation of students' English standards. With the full implementation of mother tongue instruction, students will find it easier to apprehend the content of their curricula and thus it helps in their learning process. As a result, they can spare more time to improve their English. Moreover, in order to raise the standard of students' English, the report proposed a series of activities which could include extended reading programmes and English activities, summer camps and summer courses, as well as general and vocational English courses for school leavers who are about to take up employment or study abroad. All these are English enhancement measures. On the contrary, given our resources in constraint, I wonder if it is really worthwhile to let our limited resources be shared by mother tongue instruction and English medium instruction at the same time while
the latter will bring more difficulties in learning and is less beneficial to the students? Sir, all along, the standing of Chinese has been slighted. In the recruitment of civil servants and enrolment of students in tertiary institutions, the scale is tipped heavily in favour of candidates with good English. Meanwhile, social standing is also judged according to one's standard of English. In these circumstances, how can we expect the parents to opt for mother tongue instruction for their children voluntarily? As such situation still exists today, if the Administration proceeds with the streaming policy, it will only compel the school authorities and parents to switch to English-medium classes all together. They will attach greater importance to the English language and try every means to enhance the standard of English of their students and children respectively. They hope these children will be allocated to the English-medium classes and eventually have a brighter future. The implementation of streaming policy will only make our schools attach more importance to the use of English as the language of instruction resulting in the formation of a trend regarding English as superior to Chinese. It will also add further weights to the pressure of students and put the Chinese-medium schools and their students in a position in which they are unable to compete with their counterparts in the English stream and thus become second class schools and students. Furthermore, the adoption of streaming system will also give rise to social differentiation and foster the emergence of elitism in our education framework. This will be running counter to the spirit of mother tongue instruction as the major mode of education advocated and encouraged by the Administration all the time. Sir, due to the positive effects brought by mother tongue instruction to the learning process of students and in order to make this mode of instruction a success, the Administration and the tertiary institutions should accordingly act together and take some appropriate measures in respect of recruitment and academic entry requirements, such as adjusting the existing over harsh requirement in the standard of English by these institutions and the Civil Service. These measures will back up the promotion of Chinese-medium instruction and generate a bright prospect for secondary school leavers in employment and further studies.
Mixed-mode operation for primary schools
Sir, the report affirmed that the ultimate target of primary education is the provision of whole-day schooling for all. It is a correct approach towards primary education. In fact, the whole-day system for primary education has all along been welcomed by various sectors of the community. However the Administration, in view
of the resource implications involved, has proposed to introduce a mixed-mode approach, whereby Primary I to Primary IV classes will remain bisessional but Primary V and Primary VI students will attend school for the whole day. Such a proposal has indeed caused a number of problems. As the report has pointed out, teachers prefer to work in half-day schools, despite the shorter hours, the salary is the same as that in whole-day schools. Under such circumstances, unless the pay for teachers working in whole-day schools or those in half-day schools is adjusted, it will be difficult to redeploy teachers to whole-day or half-day schools without causing discontent among them. To downgrade one of the existing headmasters of a bisessional school to the post as deputy will generate feelings of demotion and humiliation. In reality, how can we expect a group of teachers coerced to work overtime as well as demoted deputy heads of schools to promote primary education whole-heartedly? How can we pin high hopes on a successful mixed-mode system for primary schools without their positive involvement and impetus in promoting the reforms for primary education? Sir, the Executive Council submitted in September 1989 that sufficient sites should be reserved only for the additional primary schools required as a result of the mixed-mode policy applicable to Primary V and VI pupils. Such a recommendation has cast doubts on the sincerity of the Administration in carrying out its ultimate target of providing whole-day schooling for primary education which it has all along emphasized. As a matter of fact, if sufficient sites are not reserved for additional schools to prepare for the full implementation of the whole-day system in future, how will we be able to acquire adequate school sites to meet such an ultimate target when all of the districts have been fully developed?
Sir, I have no doubt that a number of recommendations in the report are worthy of our praise. However, the report is not an invulnerable one. Some of the recommendations are subject to modifications after detailed study and careful consideration. A lot of representations and comments have been made by various sectors of the community in recent days. The Administration should take them into consideration seriously and accept all reasonable ideas suggested in order to make the recommendations in the report to perfection.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
PROF POON: I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the issue of language in education which has been a topic of debate for many years and which is of particular concern to me as an educationist in Hong Kong for over 20 years.
Lord ROBBINS when discussing higher education defined the purpose of education as being "instruction in skills; promotion of the general powers of the mind; advancement of learning; transmission of a common culture and standards of citizenship." It is with respect to the transmission of a common culture and standards of citizenship that we must address now.
Language, I would suggest, is the primary means whereby the cultural context of a society is established and defined, it is the matrix of culture; many would even say that the language defines the culture. Language is the source and repository of the intellectual framework, of the behaviour ethics, of the philosophical context of our day-to-day work. The intellectual and cultural identity of the Hong Kong citizen is defined in terms of language in which he thinks. For the vast majority of the citizens of Hong Kong, Chinese is the mother tongue and serves as the essential social integrative factor in our society.
I therefore welcome the proposals made in Education Commission Report No. 4 for the strengthening of Chinese and for encouraging a wider use of Chinese in secondary schools. I believe these will strengthen the bonds of culture and citizenship in Hong Kong.
Whilst I am supportive of the view that students will learn more effectively through their mother tongue than through English, we should not undermine the importance of English, which for most of us, serves as an instrumental language. It is used in government and in administration, in trade with the rest of the world, within the academic world for study and in some sectors of employment. It is for most of our citizens a tool, but a necessary tool to maintain Hong Kong's international position.
Being the head of a tertiary institution, I see the importance of English as of more than economic advantage. It is the language in which the international communities of scholars, of scientists, of engineers and other professions communicate. A weakening of the knowledge of English in Hong Kong society means weakening of our links with the worlds of ideas of scholarship and the profession.
The ideal therefore is that all our school pupils should be competent in both Chinese and English; that is they should have bilingual competence and be able to benefit from a bilingual education.
The Education Commission Report No. 4 recommendation that "English medium secondary education should be open only to those who had reached the threshold" however causes much concern to myself and to my colleagues in the education sector, as it would create social differentiation and lead to elitism. Although the report recognized the need to give proper emphasis to both Chinese and English, the proposed framework, as far as I can see, does not ensure that the need for proficient users of both languages is met.
I would therefore hope to see that in introducing the grouping of students by medium of instruction, conscious effort should be made by the English medium schools to increase their emphasis on the subject of Chinese and vice versa, Chinese medium schools on the subject of English, hence giving proper emphasis to both languages.
Also as a positive step in encouraging schools to adopt Chinese as the medium of instruction and to overcome parents' perception that Chinese medium education poses a potential handicap to their children's eligibility to proceed to tertiary education, it is most important that a clear, direct and open path is provided by the tertiary sector of all Secondary VII graduates, with the A level (or AS level) required, for entry to the relevant courses, making no distinction between students who have studied and taken their examinations in Chinese and those in English.
However, as a great proportion of the teaching in tertiary institutions will be in English, students are expected to have established a level of competence in English which will enable them to benefit from an education conducted largely in English. I therefore support Education Commission Report No. 4's proposal to introduce a
bridging course between secondary and tertiary education and would like to see such courses being offered jointly by the tertiary institutions and the Education Department.
Finally, I would conclude my speech by assuring the Council that I welcome the Education Commission Report No. 4 in its encouragement of a wider use of Chinese, which we believe is central to our Hong Kong cultural perspective; and its attempt to ensure that students will learn secondary school subjects in as effective a manner as possible.
I, in my position, will do all I can to ensure that the tertiary system will respond positively to these recommendations.
With these remarks, Sir, I support the motion.
MR SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, in the policy debate this year, I stated in the conclusion of my speech that "If the 'rose garden' is to be put in place, roses have to be grown in it. The people is our 'roses'".
To cultivate our people into "roses" worthy of the name, we have to rely on education. Nine-year free education is the foundation of the entire education system. It is the stage that seedlings of the roses are to be nursed. Without strong and healthy seedlings there will not be any beautiful flowers. As we have decided to speed up our development in tertiary education, we shall have to review our nine-year free education and improve its quality in order to render essential support to the cause.
Though the Education Commission Report No. 4 has been given the long title of "Curriculum and Behavioural Problems in Schools", the report itself is in fact a review of the nine-year free education. I hope that the authority concerned will give adequate, serious and careful consideration to views expressed by all sectors during the consultation period and accept them with a view to improving the quality of nine-year free education. The issue should not be taken lightly, otherwise there will be adverse results.
During discussions in the consultation period, recommendations relating to the curriculum, for instance, the concept of "attainment targets", the implementation of "target-related assessment" and the setting up of "Curriculum Development Institute" have generally been overlooked. The curriculum is not merely an isolated issue. It also involves the method of teaching, the system of examination, the objectives of education, and above all, a major reform on the philosophy of education. The "attainment target" serves like the compass in showing the direction; the "target-related assessment" provides us with the means, or the map by which we may recognize our position; and the "Curriculum Development Institute" is the set-up, or the shoes, that we are equipped with to fare forth. Though we are provided with the compass, the map and the shoes, it does not mean that we have already reached the destination. There is still a long hard journey to go. The major drawback of the recommendations in the report is that they are impressive in theory, but vague in the details of their implementation. There is no guarantee of their effectiveness and the ultimate benefit on students appears remote. Besides, if educationists on
the frontline fail to have thorough understanding of the recommendations, there will be a danger of these recommendations becoming mere formalities which cannot fulfil the objectives. The authorities concerned have to step up publicity and make greater efforts in giving effect to the relevant measures.
After the publication of the report, three issues arise as the most controversial topics for discussion, that is, the medium of instruction, mixed-mode schooling and School Guidance Officers. The Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (the Union), which has a membership of more than 47 000, is the largest teachers' organization in Hong Kong. Being the representative of the education sector as well as incumbent member of the Union, I am obliged to reflect their views.
As far as the medium of instruction is concerned, there has been a polarization of views on the subject of the use of the mother tongue. Some are in favour of compulsory grouping of schools by medium of instruction, while some are more inclined towards maintaining the status quo in which schools are free to have their own way. Saddled with a historical burden passed down from more than 100 years ago, and the very strong influence of existing social practices, these problems cannot be solved by extreme methods. We are not advocating a compromise. We are simply trying to be realistic. The Union proposes that a transitional period be allowed to create a favourable environment for the use of the mother tongue in teaching thereby giving it a chance to prove to students, teachers, parents and the general public that a far better result may be achieved if the mother tongue instead of English is used as the medium of instruction and that such a mode of teaching will never hamper the enhancement of the standard of English among students. Only by so doing can the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction become a built-in force that may generate further development, resulting in full implementation of this policy in secondary schools.
Specific suggestions are as follows:
(1) Medium of instruction grouping of students by subjects should be allowed. At present, the report only recommends such grouping of students by schools or by class. The proposal to allow for such grouping by subjects has been abandoned. Medium of instruction grouping by subjects was in fact, once a proposal of the Education Department to all secondary schools. Many of them have adopted this approach and have succeeded in consolidating some experience and achievements. Should this approach be denied, it does not only betray the capriciousness of the
policy-making authorities, but also discourage many of those secondary schools which plan to adopt this approach in preparing themselves for full conversion to the use of the mother tongue in teaching. Probably they will withdraw and adopt a wait and-see attitude, refusing to introduce grouping on a school basis. This will indeed be a blow to the use of the mother tongue in teaching and end up with the negative result of "more haste, less speed". I stress that medium of instruction grouping by subjects should be allowed in schools in order to develop gradually towards the use of mother tongue in teaching.
(2) The use of the mother tongue in teaching should be implemented gradually in three stages: (1) From 1991 to 1994, the discretionary stage during which schools are allowed to exercise their own discretion on the basis of their professional knowledge to decide on the pattern of medium of instruction grouping, whether by school, by class or by subjects; (2) from 1994 to 1997, the stage of professional guidance and supervision by the authorities concerned, during which schools which have not made an appropriate choice on the medium of instruction will be provided with clear and compelling guidelines on the basis of the results of target-related assessments and the findings of professional research, or further still, close supervision will be given if the guidelines are not followed; (3) from 1997 onwards, a stage of mandatory professional guidance by the authorities concerned, during which secondary schools which fail to follow the professional guidelines and are found to be adopting an inappropriate medium of instruction during the period of supervision, will be subject to mandatory administrative measures.
(3) Starting from next year, an assessment test on Chinese and English should be conducted for all Form I students after their admission. The assessment should be co-ordinated by the Education Department and conducted in all secondary schools after the results of secondary school places allocation are announced but before school begins. The Education Department will set the questions and the marking
system. The schools will submit to the Education Department the assessment results and seek approval for the decision on the medium of instruction they propose to make on the basis of the results. In this way, schools may be encouraged to exercise their own discretion under initial guidance and do not have to wait till 1994 for the
findings of the target-related assessment.
Now, I will turn to the issue of mixed-mode schooling.
Recently, The Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union received a statement jointly
signed by thousands of its members in strong objection to mixed-mode schooling. The full text of the statement is as follows:
"Since the Certificated Master issue, the demand for provision of whole-day schooling for all primary students has become one of the major tasks of our fellow workers in promoting education reforms. We earnestly hope that the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union will:
(1) Make firm demands on the Government for early implementation of whole-day schooling in all primary schools and a timetable on the pace to achieve the said target.
(2) Raise strong objection against the implementation of mixed-mode schooling as proposed in the Education Commission Report No. 4 for the following reasons:
(i) Mixed-mode schooling is not a genuine form of whole-day schooling in primary schools. Piecemeal and plagued by numerous shortcomings, the proposal is not the only alternative to bridge over to whole-day schooling in primary schools.
(ii) The interests of the teachers will be jeopardized by mixed-mode schooling. Their morale and promotion prospects will be gravely affected when many of them have to leave their existing posts in the event of class reduction.
(iii) The interests of the school heads will be jeopardized by mixed-mode schooling, because many of them will have to be demoted to deputies.
(iv) Under the mixed-mode schooling system, primary schools in Hong Kong will have to adopt three administrative systems in a school for a long period of time. This will result in confusion in school administration and students cannot gain benefit from the merits of full-scale unisessionalism in primary schools.
(3) Make strong request for extension of the consultation period of the Education Commission Report No. 4.
The Union has had a number of frank and in-depth discussion with those who jointly signed the statement and a consensus has been reached on the approach to be adopted by primary schools in changing over to whole-day operation. The main points are:
(1) It should be made compulsory for primary schools with adequate accommodation to convert fully into whole-day operation.
(2) The number of schools to be built in new development areas should be in line with the number of places required for full-scale operation of unisessionalism in primary schools so as to enable these schools to operate on such a basis right from the start.
(3) Compulsory introduction of the mixed-mode system to primary schools should be condemned. The system should only be operated on a voluntary and experimental basis for assessment of its effectiveness and for the benefit of gathering experience.
(4) Additional resources should be granted at all class levels, instead of restricting to Primary V and Primary VI only, for schools fully converted to whole-day operation or implementing the mixed-mode system on an experimental basis.
These views are generally and strongly held by school heads and teachers who serve on the frontline in primary education. Such generally and strongly held views should definitely not be ignored. We have got to take the sentiment, feeling and practical experience of these people seriously. Unless we do so, the mixed-mode system, even if introduced compulsorily, will not only fail to improve the quality of primary education but will bring about adverse effect. I hope the authorities concerned will be modest enough to give adequate and careful consideration to their views and accept them. As the representative of the education sector and incumbent member of the Union,
I cannot but put forth such a request.
I would like to turn to the issue of Student Guidance Officers.
The Union has had a number of frank and in-depth discussion with representatives of the Student Guidance Officers in service. They are people with great sense of vocation for their profession and they have good practical experience of their work. We are fully convinced by their views:
(1) They give whole-hearted support to the introduction of school-based remedial programmes where guidance to students is provided in joint efforts with other teachers.
(2) However, they oppose to the gradual transfer of most of the Student Guidance Officers posts presently in the Education Department to schools to enable school heads
to select one of their teachers to serve as Student Guidance teacher. They submit that Student Guidance Officers of the Education Department should be fully responsible for guidance work in schools. In the light of their professional knowledge, their sense of vocation and their practical experience, they point out that while co-ordination is required for student guidance work and school administration and teaching to complement each other, there are major differences in the orientation of these two aspects of work. If recommendations of the report are accepted, objectives in school administration and teaching will definitely interfere with that in guidance work, and achievement of the latter will definitely be restricted and hampered. If the relative independence of guidance work can be preserved by placing Student Guidance Officers directly under the Education Department and a suitable balance can be struck between guidance work on the one hand and school administration and teaching on the other hand, we shall be in a better position to provide guidance to students and look after their well-being.
(3) The existing problem with student guidance work mainly lies in manpower problem and inadequate resources. The manning ratio is highly disproportionate for each Student Guidance Officer. Their workload is heavy. Should this main problem be resolved, work will be better done. There will not be any disruption to the whole school approach or the co-operation between Student Guidance Officers and other teachers in providing guidance to students if Student Guidance Officers remain, as they are now, under the Education Department.
Sir, I have attended the meeting and spoken in my indisposition. I apologize for having to leave the meeting early if I cannot hold on to the end of it.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR TAI: Sir, I will first speak on the medium of instruction in our schools. During this transitional period, there will be three different types of schools based on the medium of instruction:
(i) Chinese secondary school;
(ii) English secondary school; and
(iii) school which offers two different sectors of instruction in Chinese and in English.
There has been an international consultative report on education which recommended, years ago, that the mother tongue is the best medium of instruction both for the teacher and for the student, bearing in mind that we are dealing with the question of medium of instruction rather than fluency in a second language. Moreover, in Hong Kong we have strong and sufficient cultural, social, political as well as psychological grounds to uphold this. Japan and Germany can furnish us with the next and most successful examples of the use of the mother tongue as the medium of instruction. Their children are mainly taught in their mother language in primary and secondary schools and some even in universities. These two countries are becoming the economic superpowers in the world of today.
As to the terms of reference of the report, they include co-ordinating and monitoring the planning and development of education at all levels. The report has little or nothing on adult education. It is noted that the Government is now running a dwindling service in adult education. Does it mean that this area of service will be discarded or neglected?
The next area I would go into is the limited or shortage of open space in our schools.
As more and more schools are being built either in the urban areas or in the rural areas of the New Territories, these new schools are handicapped in open space when compared to the older schools. In order to offer more space for school activities, more open space should be offered in the planning stage.
As to the suggestion of whole-day school, there are clear advantages arising from this suggestion; however, I personally foresee practical difficulties in its implementation.
First of all, there is no target date set for the completion of phasing in the new measures. So much so, a school may be stuck with only Primary V and VI for whole-day school while Primary I to IV for half-day sessions for a long time or indefinitely. The schools concerned will face tremendous difficulties in administration, staffing and so on by accommodating two systems in one school. Parents may face difficulties in sending their children to school if they attend morning and afternoon as well as the whole-day session.
The phasing-in approach for the whole-day school would require additional
teachers in the region of 700 to 800 new teachers. Last September there is already an overall shortage of teachers in Hong Kong in the region of above 10%. Government should take measures to stem the tide or rectify the situation of shortage of manpower in the educational sector.
The next area I would like to go into is the village schools in the rural areas of the New Territories.
With the development of new towns and decreasing birth rate in Hong Kong, more and more new primary schools are now being built in the New Territories especially in the new housing estates. The village primary schools, which are largely responsible for the primary education in New Territories during the 1950s to the 1970s are now dwindling. They are handicapped in terms of facilities, equipment and size.
There are now still in operation more than 130 primary village schools in the rural areas -- a lot of them because local and rural population demand still exists and this helps maintain an acceptable student in-take rate for these schools.
Unfortunately, their facilities are sub-standard. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that the Administration consider offering appropriate funding to those selected village schools to improve their school facilities, thereby strengthening the confidence of parents, students and school staffs in their schools especially to alleviate the high demand for school places in new housing estates situated near to their village counterparts.
Not surprisingly, a lot of the toilets of these village type schools do not have a flushing water system. Many parents are put off by the standard of toilet facilities and this is one of the many reasons they refrain from sending their children to village schools. Most of these village schools, in comparison with their standard counterparts, lack school halls, proper toilet facilities, music room, recreation room, science room, special purpose room and seriously lack proper teaching equipment, such as photocoping machine, and so on.
Over the years and for each year, there are about 10 village schools being closed down because of insufficient student intake. The land involved was usually donated by private individuals and building costs for the super-structure which is the school were met partly by the board of directors and partly by the Government. The structure of these buildings is generally sound. However, once the school is closed down, the
building being left vacant and unattended has become the object of vandalism.
In order to remove these rural and environmental problems, I would suggest making better use of these empty school buildings, for the purpose of recreational centre, library and so on, so as to make better use of our resources; long-term arrangement can be made in respect of the school buildings being left vacant once these village primary schools have been closed.
With these remarks, Sir, I support the motion.
4.52 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: There are still a number of Members who have their names down to speak. Members might like to take a short break at this point.
5.24 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Council will now resume.
MRS TAM: Sir, I observe that education is like food and cooking. It is a topic on which everyone has an opinion: everyone thinks they are an expert -- and of course they are! In the end we are all the consumers. It is no use marketing any product, however good the manufacturer believes it to be, if the customer does not want it.
Sir, in the long-running controversy on language teaching much of the blame has been laid at the door of the customers, in this case parents, for placing undue emphasis on the importance of English in the belief -- a well-founded belief -- that competence in English gives their children the best career opportunities. They believe that children have a better chance of achieving this competence if they are taught in English rather than simply learning English as a subject. This may or may not be a well-founded belief too, but neither in this report nor elsewhere have I found any evidence on which I -- or any other parent -- could base an opinion. Unless and until there is such evidence how can parents be confident that they, or the system, are doing the right thing for their children?
The Commission has been criticized for not coming up with a foolproof answer to this problem. But their report has attempted to grasp the language nettle firmly
and hold it up, so that we can all see how prickly it really is. The language problem is a highly complex one and it is not surprising that the report has not been able to solve it overnight. But the Commission has at least moved the debate forward by making some positive recommendations about parallel streaming in English or Chinese, which could be a useful direction in which to move. It is still a compromise but it is difficult to see what else we could have expected, given the lack of research and divisions of opinion that still bedevil the subject.
Sir, the Commission suggests that it is now time for each school to give some hard thought to their proposals, to see how best it can cater for the language needs and abilities of its pupils. Parents will need to understand the implications of any new measures and be convinced that they are going to succeed if the schools want their co-operation.
It will take a decade for the proposed strategy to work through the system completely -- from 1991-92, when the schools first make their choice between Chinese and English as their medium of instruction, until the first full cycle of attainment targets, tests and assessments is complete.
During these years we must be assured that there will be most careful monitoring and evaluation of the effects of any new system, and that the regular reviews that the report suggests will indeed be carried out, and their results made public and clearly explained. The new proposals may not, after all, provide the answer to our language problems. We must beware of a doctrinaire attitude, and be prepared to adapt the system in the light of experience. And, most importantly, the whole apparatus of language streaming, bridging courses, movement from one medium of instruction to the other, will need the commitment and vigilance of school heads and teachers.
Debates on education tend to become academic in the worst sense of the word. There is a real risk that controversy about the recommendations on language teaching -- and other topics too -- will divert attention from the fact that the real education problems in Hong Kong are not theoretical but practical. Systems and methods, even curricula, are less important than the sufficiency and quality of teaching. And we know that there are not at present enough qualified staff -- teachers of languages or any other subject -- to improve significantly the learning environment in our schools. The teaching profession, which must be the cornerstone of any education policy, is just not attractive enough to the best and brightest graduates. And until that is dealt with, implementing recommendations of the kind made in the report will not improve the quality of education.
The Commission promises to devote its fifth report to a study of the teaching profession. Only then will we be able to see if the ideals expressed in the present document stand any chance of being realized.
One important recommendation in the report is the setting up of a Curriculum Development Institute, to occupy a central place in our education system. Sir, I welcome this in principle because I think the content of the school syllabus is in need of reform. But do not let this turn out to be a top-heavy white elephant. A hundred people to form a Curriculum Development Institute and the most brilliant ideas they can produce will be completely wasted if we do not have the able, trained and motivated teachers to put these ideas into practice.
But if the Curriculum Development Institute in some form becomes a reality, there is one plea I should like to make, Sir.
Let any reshaping of the curriculum start at the primary level, for that is where reform is most urgent. I have seen in my own young children how our primary pupils are overburdened by the amount of school and homework they are expected to do. With the emphasis on traditional teaching methods and rote learning, all too often children react against school and what it stands for, and develop negative attitudes which can lead later to just those learning and behavioural difficulties for which the report seeks remedies.
Of course we can try to prevent or minimize such difficulties by making early school days absorbing and stimulating, including sufficient time and space for children to discover their own real talents and develop their individual personalities.
The primary years are the time to lay the foundations on which secondary and tertiary education will stand. At later stages, where disaffection with school has already occurred, all we can do is rely on more or less remedial measures. I am sure the secondary schools are concerned to do the best they can for their pupils, but their task is made harder if the children coming from the primary schools are already tired and drained of enthusiasm for learning.
But of course, no programme, however ideal, could prevent learning, behaviours or emotional problems arising from time to time. Often they are just a product of
growing up and will disappear if handled with understanding; in some cases they are more serious and can lead to delinquent, and sometimes criminal, behaviours.
Sir, I am glad to see that the Commission here recognizes the importance of counselling and guidance. In my work with young people I have seen the value of school social workers and youth counsellors, and I very much hope that resources will be forthcoming to strengthen these support services. A school-based team of guidance teachers and the availability of referral to educational psychologists, social welfare organizations and the relevant professional services of the Education Department -- these are recommendations I strongly support. Furthermore, I hope that the Social Welfare Department will also contribute to the effectiveness of this programme by speedily improving the ratio of school social workers to the promised one per 2 000 students. This will be a positive demonstration of Government's commitment to school counselling and school social work.
Disaffected pupils and unruly and delinquent behaviour can affect the whole school environment. Dealing sympathetically, and professionally where necessary, with children's problems is one step towards improving the atmosphere of the school.
In this context, Sir, I welcome the recommendation to eliminate corporal punishment, which is degrading and negative, no more suitable for children than it is for adults. Effort and imagination are needed to try and forestall lapses in behaviours, and to impose constructive and suitable sanctions when such lapses do occur. Good teachers will find the way to do this, and successes will be infinitely more rewarding to both teachers and pupils alike than the institutionalized bullying
that corporal punishment represents, and the resentment and antagonism it perpetuates.
The report makes proposals, too, on the way to help the 1% or 2% of children who remain completely unmotivated by the usual curriculum or have really serious learning difficulties. The Commission recognizes that academic subjects are not the only route to success, and suggests giving this group of children a school environment designed to suit their needs, where their particular talents and strengths can be developed. Too often in ordinary schools the children who find it impossible to keep up with the others are written off as failures and have no chance of demonstrating what they can do well. Parents will need to be reassured that in schools specially created for them, their non-academic children need not suffer the stigma or the burden of failure. With the help of skilled and dedicated teachers, they too can be
achievers and lead successful lives.
Throughout the whole range of schools the ideal climate for education comes with co-operation between teachers, parents and pupils. Let us open up lines of communication between the home and the school, encourage the involvement of parents in school activities, develop parent teacher associations. Education, if we are to maintain our role as a successful, international community, has to take a front stage role in Hong Kong today. And I hope parents will make sure that they are in on the act!
Sir, in this report I see signs of a new approach to the whole subject of schooling in Hong Kong. I pick up with pleasure the phrase "the whole school approach" which the Commission recommends in dealing with the various sorts of personal difficulty school children may encounter. But I do not think it should be thought of as just a strategy for solving problems. I want to see integration of activities within
individual schools; good relationships between teachers and professional experts outside the school; involvement of parents in school life and improved public relations to ensure that there is community awareness and understanding of what the educators of Hong Kong are setting out to do. All these are touched on by the Commission, and when the argument and controversy over its individual topics have died down, perhaps this report's philosophy of the "whole school", whole person, whole community involvement will remain its best testimonial.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR TAM (in Cantonese): Sir, I do not work in the educational sector, nor do I have any professional knowledge of education. Nonetheless, I had my schooling in Hong Kong and my two children are receiving education here. I therefore have strong feelings for the pressure and the adverse effect of the existing education system on our students.
As we all know, the pyramid-like educational system in the past was on the one hand, attributed to limited economic resources of the community, making it impossible to provide higher let alone tertiary education for all, and on the other hand, basically geared to the economic development of the territory, in which the supply of manpower in varying number and abilities had to be attained at different stages of development of our community through different levels of examination in the
selection of the appropriate personnel. Such practice took no heed of the aim of education and deprived a certain number of people of the opportunity for further development. Regrettably, it is a price we had to pay when we had no alternative.
However, it is beyond doubt that Hong Kong has become a more affluent society in the 1990s and the provision of 11-year universal education has become a goal that is accessible. Our children should therefore no longer be subject to the pressure of examination as we were in the past. Instead, they should be able to acquire basic education in a delightful environment and develop their own potentials and
personalities. This is where the essence of universal education lies and the reinstatement as well as the realization of this goal has become a matter of urgency.
To get to the root of the problem, we need to have a clear perception of our educational goal. Once we have the right perception, the objectives of reform in respect of the curriculum, the medium of instruction and the assessment system will become clear and discernible.
1. The development of a curriculum that is easily comprehensible, diversified, lively and flexible
Though the report acknowledges the importance of curriculum development in universal education and recommends to set up a Curriculum Development Institute, it fails to make a serious review on the problems arising from the current curriculum and offers piecemeal solutions only.
The existing school curriculum strictly follows that of the elitist educational system in the past. Its purpose is mainly to prepare our students for university education. The syllabuses are difficult, monotonous and boring, placing overwhelming emphasis on the teaching of academic subjects. Coupled with the language barrier and the pressure of examination the whole learning process has reduced to recitation of trivial details. Under such circumstances, students lose their interest in learning on the one hand while their potentials and intelligence are greatly suppressed on the other. The existing problem in our school curriculum is therefore a general one. In order to improve the quality of education, it is necessary to make overall changes instead of introducing reforms for certain groups of students as suggested in the report.
An ideal curriculum should not be an assembly line for passing on source knowledge
only, it should also inspire students with creativity and, more importantly, to take into account their overall developments. It is therefore more advisable to have a diversified curriculum that can be flexibly applied by our teachers and students to meet their own needs. I would like to emphasize that since teachers and students are the protagonists in the education programme, the curriculum should be so designed as to leave room for teachers and students to develop in accordance with their own needs.
2. The use of the mother tongue as the medium of instruction
As I have just mentioned, if we have a clear idea of the goal of universal education, the medium of instruction will not be a problem any more. Since the goal of universal education is not only the impartation of knowledge but also the cultivation of healthy personality and development of potentials, it is only natural to adopt the mother tongue as the medium of instruction. However, it is on this issue that the Education Commission Report has taken a wavering stand. The report has, on the one hand, advocated that efforts should be made to encourage the development of personal potentials on a fuller scale, but on the other hand, recommended the grouping of students by medium of instruction indefinitely on the grounds that the industrial and commercial sectors are in need of people who are proficient in English. Such argument is obviously self-contradictory.
Comments from various sectors of the community have clearly indicated that the mother tongue should be used as the medium of instruction in universal education. Never has anyone denied the importance of English in the development of Hong Kong. However, enhancement in the standard of English and the adoption of medium of
instruction are separate issues. We should not overlook the learning of English as a language. Nor should we strangle the all-round development of our students simply for the sake of promoting the learning of English.
3. Target-related assessments
The enormous pressure of examination on our students under the existing educational system has drawn strong criticism. With the introduction of universal education, it is only natural that the pressure on students will be reduced as the role of examination as a selection tool gradually subsides. However, I am afraid the target-related assessments proposed by the report will create another bondage on our students. As their performance will be put to test constantly, the students
will have to live in the anxiety that they may not be able to achieve satisfactory academic results.
Moreover, it is doubtful whether an objective and common standard can be set in regard to the development of personality and potentials after the introduction of universal education. It should be recognized that every student is unique and has different potentials and level of creativity. I therefore consider that it is more important to observe the student-oriented principle in universal education. In
other words, the whole education system should aim at enhancing the personal growth of students.
Of course, these are lofty educational goals which take time to achieve. However, we need to set such goals before we can make changes in the right direction and provide a better learning environment for our younger generation. And in order to achieve these goals, it is essential to have a good teaching profession. Therefore, how to improve the quality of our teachers is also a pressing task. I hope the Government will make desirable recommendations in the fifth report.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR MICHAEL CHENG (in Cantonese): Sir, the recommendation put forth by the Education Commission in its No. 4 report on how to improve the quality of education will have far-reaching effects on the development of our basic education. Owing to time constraint, it would not be possible for me to comment on all the recommendations in the report. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the two issues which have given rise to the greatest concern and response from the public and the education sector, namely, the policy on language in education and the implementation of mixed-mode schooling in primary schools.
The policy on language in education
At present, the use of mixed code is quite common in secondary schools. A lot of the time and efforts of the teachers are being wasted on translation of English texts into Chinese in class and the result of education is far from satisfactory as students trained in such a manner are unable to express their academic knowledge effectively in either Chinese or English independently. In fact, time used in this translation process could be better spent on other educational aspects such as
analysis and class discussions which would be of more value to students' mental
development. Based on my past experience and understanding, I think it would be more effective if the same language is used in teaching, textbooks and examinations. Thus, the use of mixed code should be reduced as far as possible.
So far the Education Department has not come up with any effective improvement measures to solve the problem on medium of instruction. It only concentrates its efforts on encouraging schools to switch to using Chinese as the medium of instruction in order to evade tackling the problem of students' declining standard of English. This has indirectly brought about increased use of mixed code in schools and further deterioration of the situation in language education.
In view of this, the grouping of students into Chinese-medium or English-medium schools or classes on the basis of their language abilities is, after all, a more feasible solution. In fact, English-medium education should continue to be made available to students whose English standard is relatively high so as to provide them with the greatest exposure to the English language. As for those students whose English standard is not as good, Chinese should be adopted as the medium of instruction so as to enable them to develop their academic potential. This is in line with the principle of education to fully cater for individual differences among students.
Hong Kong is the third largest financial centre in the world and has been able to maintain its status as an international trade centre. One of the most important factors contributory to this is that Hong Kong uses the most commonly and widely used international language -- English. In addition, most parents prefer to send their children to English-medium schools. As a matter of fact English medium instruction opens the gate to better tertiary education and employment opportunities. The fact that quite a number of Chinese-medium schools have changed into English-medium
schools in recent years substantiates this argument.
The report recommends the adoption of a clear policy of medium of instruction by schools, that is, using either Chinese or English and proposes to give schools the choice as to which medium of instruction they use. I think this is a wise approach. Hong Kong is a free society. It is reasonable and democratic to let schools choose their own medium of instruction in accordance with the wishes of parents. Although in opting to become two-medium schools in which some classes would be taught in the medium of Chinese and some in the medium of English, schools will have to face certain difficulties in terms of administration, it nevertheless helps avoid the undesirable effects arising from the use of mixed code. It is true that this is not an ideal
solution, but this can be reckoned as a compromise and therefore acceptable.
In recent years, there has seen an obvious decline in the English standard of secondary school students in Hong Kong. One of the reasons for this is that there has been a decline in English standard at primary level. Since 1981, English standards in primary schools have not yet reached the 1976 level. Thus the task of raising the English standard in primary schools should admit no delay. An international survey indicates that it will be relatively more difficult for children to start learning a second language after they are 12 years old and that learning ability decreases as age increases. In view of this, the introduction of language enhancement measures aimed at raising the English standard in Hong Kong should begin at primary level instead of secondary level, otherwise double efforts will be required for achieving the same objective. In order to raise the English standard of primary pupils, the report recommends the enhancement of English language activities at Primary V and Primary VI levels, including the introduction of extended reading programmes and the organization of fun-oriented teaching and extra-curricular activities. Apart from these measures, there should be additional periods for English lessons so as ensure a general rise in the standard of English. The Report also recommends the introduction of English assessment at Primary VI in the hope that a more balanced focusing of attention among teachers and students on what should be achieved in the languages at primary level could be obtained. It is indeed an effective approach to improve the English standard in primary schools.
To assist Form I students to adopt themselves to the change of teaching medium from Chinese to English, the report recommends the introduction and further reinforcement of bridging courses. This recommendation is appropriate and there are compelling reasons for its immediate implementation. Another good idea put forward in the report is the organization of English courses for post-Secondary V and VI students entering employment. However, if such courses are only provided during summer holidays, they will not be adequate to meet the language needs of various trades. Extending the duration of such vocational English courses, for instance, to six months or one year, would be more practical.
The report also proposes to run bridging courses similar to the full time intensive English courses between May and August to help Chinese medium school students improve their English language skills prior to their entry into tertiary education. I doubt the effectiveness of such short courses which last only for a couple of months and consider the suggestion impractical.
If the proposed policy on language in education in this report is endorsed, the Education Department will have to devise monitoring measures and give clear instructions for their implementation. Meanwhile, the manpower and effectiveness of the inspectorate will have to be strengthened. In this connection, the Education Department will need to review the present operation of the inspectorate to see whether its internal management is sound, whether its duties are actively carried out and whether its strength of manpower is adequate. Otherwise, the recommendations put forward in the report regarding the policy on language in education would end up being merely empty talk even if they are endorsed.
Implementation of mixed-mode schooling in primary schools
I agree that the ultimate target of primary education is to improve the standard of primary education through the provision of whole-day schooling for all primary students. However, given the facts that many technical details of the arrangements proposed in the report have yet to be satisfactorily sorted out and that resources are inadequate, headlong implementation of this scheme will only undermine Hong
Kong's basic education.
I have consulted the views of various teachers and educational organizations on the proposed implementation of mixed-mode schooling in primary schools. Most of them expressed strong discontent with the proposal. They think it will bring chaos to the school administration, cause disturbance among teachers and students, and
ultimately lead to a decline in education standard. In fact, I feel that the conversion of bisessional schools to whole-day operation will inevitably come up against some problems during the transitional period. The preparation of a well-devised plan taking into account the positive and negative effects is therefore necessary before implementation of this programme.
The discontent and doubts expressed by various sectors towards mixed-mode schooling can be summarized in the following four points:
(1) The report recommends the adoption of a phasing-in programme for the implementation of mixed-mode schooling which is tentatively scheduled to take six years to complete. However, the implementation of whole-day schooling is only restricted to Primary V and Primary VI levels. The report provides no clear information as to when specifically this will be extended to Primary IV level and
below, leaving the full implementation of whole-day schooling to an undetermined time-frame. This shows that the Government lacks sincerity in implementing the long-term goal of introducing "full scale whole-day schooling for primary schools".
(2) With the introduction of mixed-mode schooling, the administration systems of AM and PM schools will merge into one. At present, the head of a primary school is responsible for the management of 24 classes without the need to take up any teaching duties. However, with the implementation of mixed-mode schooling, his duties and workload will be more than doubled. He will be required to manage 46 classes and teach eight periods. The report on the one hand admits that the implementation of mixed-mode schooling will result in an increase in administrative work and management problems, while on the other hand proposes to double the workload of school heads. This shows that such a recommendation is really incongruous. Though the report
points out that the school head will be underpinned by two deputy heads in the management of school affairs, it is doubtful whether they will be able to perform school administrative functions in addition to their duties to teach 28 periods per week. The drastic increase in workload for school administrators will seriously affect the administration of schools, and thereby making it impossible to maintain the present quality of education.
It is also proposed in the report that one of two existing heads of the bisessional schools should step down to perform the functions of the deputy if mixed-mode schooling is to be implemented. By calculation based on the current establishment in government and aided schools, the implementation of mixed-mode operation is estimated to result in more than 200 redundant school heads. Apart from seriously affecting the morale of school administrators at primary school level and the promotion prospects of the primary school teachers, this will bring about a even higher wastage rate of the teaching staff. How then can we expect to see any achievement in upgrading the quality of the primary education under such circumstances?
(3) The proposal of mixed-mode schooling has failed to take into account the severe shortage of activity space for pupils in many existing standard school premises which can scarcely afford to accommodate the canteen facilities required by the whole day pupils who need to take their lunch at school. Although the schools concerned will each receive a grant of about $40,000 for the purchase of the necessary tables and benches, they will find it hard to spare any space to put their newly acquired furniture. Besides, the simultaneous operation of three sets of timetables each with
its own specified time for lessons, recesses, lunch and dismissal of school in the same premises of a school will cause confusion to the operation of the school and seriously disrupt the learning mood of the pupils. The effectiveness of teaching and pupil management will inevitably be affected.
(4) The mixed-mode system will not only improve additional workload on the teaching staff, but also lead to greater conflicts of interests between school heads and teachers. The need to re-deploy teachers to take up whole-day classes will pose a problem to the school management and may turn out to be a cause of internal conflicts
and discontent. Since the Primary V and VI teachers will have a more demanding schedule of work than their counterparts at Primary I to IV levels, it is conceivable that the morale of these teachers and the quality of their teaching will, as a result of longer working hours and heavier workload, be adversely affected.
I doubt whether members of the Education Commission have acquired an in-depth understanding of the actual operation of primary schools and wonder if their recommendations were formulated in a vacuum without making reference to the practical situation. In view of the many undesirable side effects of the mixed-mode operation, which include the loss of confidence at the management level, its impact on the professional ethics of the teachers, the possible disruption to school administration, its grave influence on the morale of the education profession as well as its serious effect on the studying environment and learning mood of the pupils, the implementation of this schooling system is bound to cause a drop in the quality of the primary education. Hence, the formulation of such a policy can rightly be described as ill-conceived. It is suggestive of an absence of representatives in the Education Commission who are capable of reflecting the true situation of the primary education and providing valuable advice for reference.
Our ultimate target is to provide whole-day schooling for all primary pupils. During the transitional period, it is, however, advisable to introduce whole-day operation by phases at a measured pace. I propose that compulsory implementation of mixed-mode operation should start with underutilized schools which are currently operating on a bi-sessional basis. While whole-day schooling should take immediate effect in all new schools, bisessional schools with full enrolment should be allowed to operate under its existing system of half-day operation until it is the ripe time for them to convert to whole-day operation.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
6.00 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: It is now six o'clock and under Standing Order 8(2) the Council should adjourn.
CHIEF SECRETARY: 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 completed.
Question proposed, put and agreed to.
MR DAVID CHEUNG: Sir, education in Hong Kong has gone through a metamorphosis in the last two decades. Yet, the primary objective of education as aspired by the population is still uni-directional or, put it simply, one track -- that is to get to university. This, in my view, is the root of all the problems.
It is not a question of whether these aspirations are right or wrong; but rather whether such aspirations are matched by suitable capabilities. In the old days when only a selected few had the opportunities for education, such aspirations were very natural and indeed attainable by the selected minority.
The wheel of education has continued to turn, however, and nearly all children of the age group now receive education up to Secondary V. On the other hand, aspirations for a university education continue to grow. Unfortunately, these are not matched by an abundant supply of university places despite our efforts, and admission is restricted to those who demonstrate the appropriate capabilities as required by the universities. Students who do not get admitted see themselves as losers; so do their parents, as if the lack of a university graduate qualification is the end of the world for their children.
The problem with our society and our education system is that too much emphasis has been placed on preparing our school children for a university education which is available to only a number of them. Unless and until the entire community looks at education and education achievements sensibly and pragmatically, all the efforts to make to improve education will be in vain.
No two persons can achieve identical educational success. We must accept that. Many from the mass will not be able to reach university level especially if they have to struggle in a foreign language. Society must recognize every type of educational success be it academic or skill oriented. The community can no longer attach value only to academic success in English, for if we do, we are depriving the vast majority of our young people of a sense of achievement.
The time has come when the community cannot afford to continue to label success with English language ability. It is simply totally unrealistic. Twenty years ago or further back, we might. The price to pay is too big for too many of our youngsters. Why can academic success in Chinese not be also properly recognized given that this is a predominantly Chinese community? Can we rule out the fact that many successful politicians do not use foreign languages? Can we rule out the fact that many super successful community leaders of Hong Kong do not speak much English? If we continue to equate success with proficiency in English, we cannot say we care for our young people; we simply condemn a lot of them. Mother tongue education must be given full support and recognition alongside education in the English language. No one will ever advocate the abolition of English education; I for one will never. But education in the Chinese language must be given more or less equal status. As a community, we must make this happen. Too many of our youngsters have suffered long enough having to struggle unsuccessfully with an English language education. There is nowhere else in the world where mother tongue education is so looked down upon and enjoys such a low social status. Should we not be ashamed of this?
It is a natural phenomenon all over the world that the majority of the population in any country are mono-lingual or good at mother tongue. Some have a knowledge of a second language. If young people elsewhere in the world can successfully complete a university course without a high command of a second language, why make life
difficult and miserable for our young people? I am not asking universities to drop English, I am pleading with the Government and the tertiary institutions to provide clear and open channels for graduates of the Chinese stream to enter tertiary institutions. Let both the English and Chinese streams graduates have parallel opportunities for tertiary education. Students in the Chinese stream have been discriminated against for far too long. If we go to Taiwan and China to get a degree, their degrees are not recognized when they come back. Where will they go? Is it fair to them? Let us search our conscience. Unless and until graduates from schools using Chinese are, in one way or another, given more or less equal opportunities for
tertiary education, the magnitude of the problem will not be significantly reduced as the years go by, and in the meantime, sacrifice the education of too many of our children.
Education using English as the medium of instruction should continue, but education using Chinese should be given equal status to show that we also care for the majority of our youngsters. The tertiary institutions must take the lead, instead of making life more miserable for those educated in Chinese.
Sir, the Education Commission has also proposed setting up special schools for youngsters with learning difficulties. I urge the community to accept these children and accept these schools. The little joy and perhaps some sense of achievement that these students may have going to school must be energetically nurtured. We must not label them, despise them and destine these schools to the doom even before their commencement. I urge parents to be sensible caring for their children. For if
parents too make life difficult for their own children, who else will care for their children? I also urge community leaders to help parents make the right decision by giving these children and these schools proper recognition.
Now to the primary sector. Judging from the reaction among the practitioners, and the reaction of some of our colleagues I gather that they are not happy about the mixed-mode operation. For so long, Sir, we have tried to get our primary schools to go whole-day. Realizing that, as a short-term goal, it is rather impossible for the entire school sector to go whole-day, the mixed-mode is designed. Yes, I agree it is not a perfect and an ideal solution. I also agree that it involves some change of status of certain existing school heads; some difficulties in administration; and some confusion too. But short of an ideal solution, this is what we consider
acceptable. The Commission has agonized over the technicalities including most of the points raised by my honourable colleague, the Honourable SZETO Wah, in his speech, and has even gone to the extent of proposing a timetable. We must recognize that any change of system involves teething problems. May I, in all sincerity, implore the practitioners to hear my cry, and accept the proposal and work together to make it a success. Hopefully, before the year 2000 we can go down to Primary IV and then continue to work towards an eventual whole-school-whole-day system. It will be
deeply and profoundly regrettable if we cannot start the ball rolling. As an incentive and encouragement, Government must provide additional resources to these schools already in whole-day operation.
Finally, Sir, unlike my honourable colleague, Mrs Rosanna TAM, I wish to express my profound regret in the abolition of corporal punishment. If King Solomon, whose wisdom is world renowned, is to be heeded, then we should never have abolished corporal punishment. Solomon said, "spare the rod, spoil the child." In my experience as a school master, corporal punishment properly exercised -- and I emphasize properly exercised -- serves very useful purpose. To some children, that is the only voice they will listen to. I can appreciate the possibility of abuse, but it need not be abolished; it can be strictly confined to the principal who will have the sole right to exercise such punishment. Now that it is gone, I honestly do not know how to tackle those children who are indifferent to everything except the stick.
Problems of discipline in schools and at home have gradually and steadily become more uncontrollable. More and more children are violent and extremely difficult to discipline. If we continue to adopt a more and more lenient and lax approach towards discipline, order will one day collapse bringing greater harm to society. It is often said that if we apply corporal punishment, we hurt the pride of the students. For those who do not know self-pride and self-respect, I do not know how we can hurt their pride. It is also said that many western countries have abolished corporal
punishment and we therefore should follow suit. I just want to say "the moon in the west is neither rounder nor brighter than the one we see."
I would like to sound a note of caution here. If discipline collapsed in schools, we would lose even more teachers. The main reason given for teacher wastage now is that students are becoming more and more difficult to manage. I urge that serious consideration be given to re-instating corporal punishment.
With these words, Sir, I support the motion.
MRS FONG: Sir, Chinese culture involves many proud traditions and many of them are part of our heritage. One of these is a deep and lasting respect for our teachers. Respect for teachers has been the rule and it has been a good one. We should do our best to preserve it in Hong Kong today.
Teachers forgo the temptations of the private sector. They forgo the bobbles of a status conscious society. They devote themselves to the noble task of preparing our greatest natural resource -- our children.
Our teachers are burdened with the task and responsibility of instilling in our next generation the powers and freedom of knowledge and the senses of pride in the years ahead in being Chinese and in being citizens of Hong Kong. They are key in helping to shape the character and mind of our children. They are the key people in the process of building the future of Hong Kong.
Sir, I believe that Hong Kong has an obligation to teachers. It must give them the respect they need and support their honoured vocation. The Education Commission Report No. 4's recommendations on introducing a mixed-mode programme providing whole-day schooling for certain forms at the primary school level must be considered with great caution and with great attention. Consideration must be given to how it will affect our teachers.
The report notes: "Teachers prefer to work in half-day schools since, despite the shorter hours, the salary is the same as that in whole-day schools." Is this the case? Are the teachers focusing only on their own convenience and not concerned with the quality of education and effectiveness of the programme. I trust that there may be some misjudgment of our teachers' motivations and I believe we should look more deeply at their concerns.
Implementing a scheme like mixed-mode schooling will necessarily result in some operational problems. There are schools in Hong Kong which are at present operating a mixed-mode system and we can learn from them. Headmasters and teachers are also in the best position to understand the problems which may arise and we must listen to them.
The model for phasing in mixed-mode schooling offers a scenario for a 24-classroom school. However, I am doubtful whether a similar approach could be adopted for a 12-classroom school without serious disruptions.
Even in the scheme for a 24-classroom school, the idea of having two, four and six vacant classes in the first, second and third year of implementation, resulting in a total of 480 fewer students under instruction in each school, appears unnecessarily wasteful particularly with a well-run school.
I support the plan to change to a whole day schooling system. But I very sincerely hope the Administration will give more consideration to the problems of organizing and implementing the changes, including looking more deeply into the concerns raised by the teachers, before moving forward.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MRS LAM (in Cantonese): Sir, the language of instruction has all along been a perplexing problem in education in Hong Kong. In the Education Commission Report No. 4, this issue accounts for 1/4 of all its contents. In this debate on the report today, I would also like to start with the language of instruction.
Streaming in education
Hong Kong is an international city and a financial centre; thus the English language has always been playing an important role in the territory. Since those with a good standard of English have an edge over others in further studies and job opportunities, many parents would rather send their children to Anglo-Chinese schools without any regard to whether the English standard of their children can cope with the mode of teaching in which English is used as the chief medium of instruction. Experience in education over a long period of time has proved that mother tongue is the most effective medium both in teaching and learning. In recent years, the use of a mixed-code approach in schools has not only lowered the students' standard in both languages but also affected their learning ability. As Hong Kong is an international commercial city, it is only right that those students who can learn in English be given the chance to do so. Basing on the above reasons, I support the idea of "Streaming in education" as proposed in the report.
In the Education Commission Report No. 4, it is recommended that schools should be divided into three types, for example Chinese-medium, English-medium and two medium of instruction and the proportion of classes in each medium they would like to offer; but the use of mixed-code teaching should be avoided as far as possible.
There are concrete example in the past which proved that when Anglo-Chinese secondary schools were converted to Chinese middle schools, considerable social resistance would be met. It is thus evident that the promotion of teaching in Chinese cannot rely on administrative directive alone, and that we should not expect it to be achieved overnight. Therefore, the pragmatic approach is to allow temporarily the co-existence of "Chinese-medium secondary schools", "English-medium secondary schools" and "two-medium schools", so as to testify to the merits of mother tongue education through practice.
The question is, for the merits of mother tongue teaching to be realized, there is the need for the complement of other social factors. The basic strategy is that the Government should amend the existing Civil Service Regulations and university entrance requirements, so that students in the "Chinese Stream" can compete with those in the so-called "upper stream" on an equal footing.
The report recommends that "target-related assessments" should be implemented in Primary VI and Secondary III to determine to which streams the student should go. Some members of the community worry that the assessment results would be used as enrolment criteria by secondary schools, which would in turn be divided into "elitist" Anglo-Chinese secondary schools and "ordinary" or second-class Chinese middle
schools. Such worries are not groundless. Some educational bodies suggested that the assessment should be conducted within schools after the intake of Secondary I students, and the questions and assessment standard should be set by the Education Department. Such a proposal is worthy of our consideration.
According to the recommendation of the Commission, while implementing "streaming in education", the Education Department would still explore ways in which a bridging course might be provided according to the students' academic performance at the end of Secondary III, to give them opportunities to "transfer" to classes using another medium. I think such a measure will meet the actual needs of students and will be conducive to removing people's impression of polarization between the "Chinese stream and the English stream".
As the saying goes: "Long unity will end in separation and long separation will end in unity". This seems to be the law whereby our society keeps on evolving in endless cycles. Having spoken on "Language streaming", I would like to talk about "mixed-mode schooling" in primary schools.
Mixed-mode schooling in primary schools
The importance of primary education has long been acknowledged worldwide. Many people have attributed the speedy recovery and economic revival of Germany and Japan after the War to their success in promoting primary education, which is an elementary basis in education. At this time when the Administration attaches great importance to tertiary education, the need to enhance the quality of education in primary schools should indeed not be overlooked.