TNAG-1735-FCO40-2448-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 42

1472

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL-25 May 1988

to 1991, because tertiary institutions have already decided their acader development programme for that period. We shall certainly look at whether there is a case for further expanding the course in the next triennium, that is, from 1991 to 1994.

MRS. FAN (in Cantonese): Sir, could the Secretary inform this Council whether it is stated very clearly in the rules for admission to the Chinese University that school heads and senior teachers will enjoy priority? There are only 30 places. Would the Administration consider liaising with the Chinese University with a view to informing primary school teachers clearly of such a condition so that they will not be disappointed?

SECRETARY FOR Education and MANPOWER: Sir, I understand this question was discussed recently at a meeting of the Board of Education with a representative from the Chinese University. My understanding was that the university did give an undertaking on those lines. But Mrs. FAN would be much more familiar with this than me because she is the chairman of the board.

MR. SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, when teachers in government primary schools attend such courses, their course fees cannot be refunded. Is this fair?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, my understanding is that those who attend the course can be refunded. I am not quite sure what the point of unfairness is that Mr. SZETO Wah is raising.

MR. SZETO (in Cantonese): According to a circular, heads and senior teachers can get refund and the amount of refund is based on the number of pupils in the school. There is, therefore, a situation whereby in the bigger schools where there are more pupils, the heads will be able to get a bigger refund, but in the smaller schools the amount of refund will be smaller. So is this fair?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I am not aware of any unfairness in the arrangements but I will certainly look into it and let Mr. SZETO have a further reply. (See Annex II)

Utilisation of community centres

6. MR. CHEONG-LEEN asked: According to a survey done by the Government in August 1987, 10 out of 44 existing community centres have a daily average utilisation rate of below 50 per cent. Will Government inform this Council of the reasons for the low utilisation rate of these centres and whether any action is being taken to increase the utilisation rate so as to reduce the wastage of public funds?