Address at Luncheon held by Hong Kong Democratic Foundation

5 May 2004

Bishop Joseph Zen

I would like to start by clarifying what is not and what is the problem in question in this controversy regarding the “Education (Amendment) Bill 2002”.

It is not a problem of accountability or transparency in regard to the use of public fund. There are strict rules by which we are accountable to the Government down to the last cent.

It is not about school based management or democracy or participation. We whole-heartedly embrace all these principles. Some of our schools have already invited teachers and parents who share our vision and mission to sit in the School Management Committee and we are determined to push for the full implementation of the recommendation by the “Quality School Education” (Report No. 7) of the Education Commission in September 1997 to set up “School Executive Committee” (SEC) in our schools.

The SEC allows many school stakeholders to participate and discuss all sorts of matters. Although the SEC is only a consultative body it is evident that the School Management Committee will approve all its decisions unless they are against our vision and mission.

So what is the problem?

Why are we against the change that in the words of Mr. Anthony Leung (when he was chairperson of the Education Commission) is “revolutionary”?

So what is the problem?

Now, in the existing system the Government controls the School Sponsoring Bodies (SSB), the SSB through the Supervisor and the School Management Committee controls the schools. Legally the Supervisor alone who is the representative of the SSB is responsible for the school and answerable to the Government in all matters.

In the future, with the new system the “Incorporated Management Committee”, collectively, will be legally responsible for the school and we, the SSB will simply be bypassed.

a) The Government said that they are ready to grant the existence of a Supervisor as the chairperson of the School Management Committee. But that will not be the same role. In the new system he or she can only chair the meetings and has no particular power outside the committee meetings.

b) They said that the SSB can appointed up to 60 % of the members in the School Management Committee and so can still have control. But everybody knows the problems will not be solved by a majority of votes in such a committee. If the elected members of the School Management Committee are strongly against the vision and mission of the SSB there will be insolvable division in the committee.

c) They said that the SSB can write into the Constitution its vision and mission on education. But the Constitution can neither go into details nor to be too concrete. If there is no structure to guarantee its implementation it will only remain a statement. In the present system the members of the School Management Committee are appointed by the SSB to guarantee its loyalty to the Constitution.

So the worrying fact for us is that, given the new situation we, the SSB who sponsor many schools, will not be able to carry out our responsibility. Our strong point in the present situation is to have a solid supporting structure behind each school and its supervisor. We have in the Diocese a Central Management Committee. Even though it has no legal status it is very effective. Members consist of many school principals, some members from the clergy and some experts in the legal profession. They study the education policy of the Government and the situation of the society and give guidance to our schools. There is also the Catholic Education Office staffed with those who have experience as principals of schools and who work full time to help solve any problem that may arise in individual schools. According to the new Ordinance these two bodies will have no legal title to intervene in the affairs of individual schools, but without them the Diocese will not be able to be really responsible for the schools and their needs.

Allow me to take this chance to answer some queries:

1 When we said that we might be forced to hand back some schools to the Government some people took it as a threat. But we are sure the Government can easily find many people who would want to take over these schools. Therefore teachers and parents of the students should not be worried. Only we will be sorry the day we have to do this.

2 Some question why we prefer confrontation to dialogue. We feel that we had no opportunity to have a real dialogue with the Government, neither with the Chief Executive nor with Mrs. Fanny Law. The latter did graciously invite me once for breakfast and recently pay me a visit but it turned out to be two monologues and no real dialogue.

3 Since somebody mentioned on one occasion the possibility that we might sue the Government for unilaterally changing the agreement with the SSB. I started thinking seriously of this possibility, or we may even accuse the Government of contravening Article 141 of the Basic Law which says,”…...Religious organizations may, according to their previous practice, continue to run..….schools……”.

4 Someone accused me of telling lies regarding the consent of other religious organizations in opposing the “Education (Amendment) Bill 2002”. It is true that the problem was never brought to the Colloquium of the Six Religions but in the written response to the Government consultation both the Buddhist Association and the Taoist Association are among the 27 signatories of the Association of SSB. I suppose that there are different people taking part in the Colloquium and in the Association. Maybe a lack of communication is the source of the misunderstanding.

5 In the coming five years we would not experiment the new “Incorporated Management Committee” because there will be no way back if we do. What we are going to do is to set up the “School Executive Committee” recommended in the “Quality School Education” (Report No. 7) by the Education Commission in September 1997. We shall opt for more teachers and parents who share our vision and mission to join the School Management Committee. In this way we will be able to prove that the principle of “school based management” can be realized without this new legislation which drastically imposes a uniformed structure to all schools in Hong Kong, destroying the wonderful pluralism which for so many years has been the pride of this city and the admiration of many Educationists in the world.