回復 19# dye


按照「香港文化」,的「香港法律」,你有得告才算啦。
回復 21# Nomad

咁我報名而無故缺席但又唔俾錢, 學校去小額錢債庭有得告才算啦
If the executive branch is wasting their money, the legislative coucil has a duty to keep it in check (NOT the court).

BUT, at least half of the Legco is pro-government by the current political system.
----------------------------
Under basic law
第三十二條
香港居民有信仰的自由。

香港居民有宗教信仰的自由,有公開傳教和舉行、參加宗教活動的自由。

The student has a right to refuse to go.  The school has a right to invite.

-------------
Also relevent,
第八條
香港原有法律,即普通法、衡平法、條例、附屬立法和習慣法,除同本法相抵觸或經香港特別行政區的立法機關作出修改者外,予以保留。

The school authority is there before the handover.

------------

And

第一百三十七條
各類院校均可保留其自主性並享有學術自由,可繼續從香港特別行政區以外招聘教職員和選用教材。宗教組織所辦的學校可繼續提供宗教教育,包括開設宗教課程。

學生享有選擇院校和在香港特別行政區以外求學的自由。


第一百四十一條
香港特別行政區政府不限制宗教信仰自由,不干預宗教組織的內部事務,不限制與香港特別行政區法律沒有抵觸的宗教活動。

宗教組織依法享有財產的取得、使用、處置、繼承以及接受資助的權利。財產方面的原有權益仍予保持和保護。

宗教組織可按原有辦法繼續興辦宗教院校、其他學校、醫院和福利機構以及提供其他社會服務。

香港特別行政區的宗教組織和教徒可與其他地方的宗教組織和教徒保持和發展關係。
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 13:05 編輯

I am not sure about US of A.  In Canada, UK, or in HK, the losing party in a lawsuit will pay for the fee inccured by the winning party.

The risk of suing others is high.

-----------
In precedent case, you also note that a private citizen has no standing in these kind of cases.  You will probably need to prove you are "injuried" somehow by it.

-------------
In any case, I am only pointing out that going to court is not how it is handle for a mis-spending.  Check is placed (supposively) at Legco when they passed the budget.
各類院校均可保留其自主性並享有學術自由,可繼續從香港特別行政區以外招聘教職員和選用教材。宗教組織所辦的學校可繼續提供宗教教育,包括開設宗教課程。

宗教組織可按原有辦法繼續興辦宗教院校、其他學校、醫院和福利機構以及提供其他社會服務。

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

答案就是,在「香港特色的宗教自由」下,教會學校幹甚麼,沒有告狀的余地。
這個討論已經完了。
回復 22# 沙文


到時他們記你大過加寫爛你TRANSCRIPT時,在香港你沒錢出國可能比小額錢債庭告更嚴重。
回復 24# dye


yeah, except, in a publicly funded school in US, that piece of notice alone would cease the funding to the school altogether, and possibly incur a huge fine on the school.
In Hong Kong? Nothing, the same "basic law" protects whatever the school does for shit as long as the legco, which is pretty much dominated by the same interest group, passes the bill.
Enjoy your "HK style basic rights".
本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 13:37 編輯

Also notice that  in HK there's neither tax return nor a "guaranteed" government funding for attending a non-government funded school, which means, if you do not attend a high school run by public funding, you're penalized by double-taxing.
迫人睇 方舟不是神話   

so PK.
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 14:27 編輯

Basic law also has

THE HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS

Article 15

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

(1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

(2) No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

(3) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

(4) The liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions shall be respected.
-----------

There is a ground for suing.  But it is basic law against basic law, which one will prevail?

Again, it is easy to ask someone to sue, but why are they suing?  Is it not for the betterment of their OWN child?  Why should one pay the whole cost for the betterment of the society?  (Which may not succed anyway)
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 14:31 編輯

回復 28# Nomad

You can pick your public highschool in HK.  You HAVE a choice.
----------
http://chsc.edb.hkedcity.net/chi/schoolprofiles_secondary.php

For example, there are 2 highschool with no religious background in the same area to pick from (if they are only interested in fully funded school)

If they are willing to pick from the subsidise ones, there are school with Budhism background, charity background, and Taoism background.
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 14:22 編輯

回復 27# Nomad

The school still need to follow the circriculum from Education Bureau.

Notice that the Lecgo pass the budget, not the bill.

------------------
Notice that Basic Law is NOT designed and passed by HKers.  It is a deal between PRC and UK before 1997.  (Hence the 'history')

HK have NO right to ammend the basic law.  Any amendment recommendation will need to have 2/3 of the Legco passing it before being sumbited to PRC for approval.
Yeah, you have a choice  - some 6% of people, with some prohibiting exam selection can choose to enter a public school because that's all the government is providing*, provided that some 50% of them will end up in church school JUST BECAUSE THERE'LL BE NOWHERE ELSE to go.

Some 800 people out of the 6 million each year has the right to elect that stupid Chief Executive of HK, you "HAVE" a choice, by the same means.


*And to enter a public high school in an area in times involves going into a church elementary school first in which an anti-religious student is subjected to tracking, which means one usually would NOT be able to get through the selection unless he somewhat subject  himself somewhat into contemplating whatever religious bullshit the school is forcing upon students.
本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 14:40 編輯

回復 30# dye


Which means depending on the intepretation of the basic law the basic law contradicts itself, which means, unless the NPC stand out to intepretate the law, and unless that intepretation is in favor of the individual's : 1. Right to not have his taxation be used in direct religious activities, (as in US) or 2. Right not to be subjected to religious activities in a government funded service (as in US), otherwise, under article 137 the individual still retain no right to sue the school on the basis of forcing him into religious activities, as that "can" be legally a part of the school's religious class.

BTW, while most HK people would go out to protest any arbitrary kind of legislation of Article 23 (which really means, this law better be never legislated), and noticing in the way they react to Article 137, to say that the Hong Kong people did not involve in the signing of the basic law adds no teeth the the counter argument that they had made no effort to fight for that right (therefore, not quite deserving it.)

Again, enjoy your "basic rights fitted into the history of Hong Kong".
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 14:37 編輯

If people are rushing to attend school other than the Christians, government will change the policy.  Right now, there is no sign of such an exodus happening.

--------
The 800 do have a choice.
For your reference, that's where the 6% comes from:
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/SC/Content_689/edsys_c.pdf
回復 36# Nomad

I am sorry.  Which page?
本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 14:44 編輯

回復 35# dye

Of course there's no such exodus, because the parents has no choice at all (there simply aren't enough seats to move into - HK education system is SATURATED, look at that damn 43 people class at every high school in the urban area, and then a self-feeding ranking system ensures underfunded schools always gets underfunded), and they won't voice it, period. (oh in fact the students themselves who ARE the ones under the education, is conveniently out of the picture, again.)

No, you have a choice, you can go start a firm or something to become a functional group member and from there, become one of that 800 (just quite like going through that school system selection bullshit), same deal.
回復 37# dye


The 24th, BTW, buying seats from a school DO counts as government funding (at least under US law), since the money does not go to the parents to choose which school (including private) they go but to the school directly.
And then of course, as said:

to say that the Hong Kong people did not involve in the signing of the basic law adds no teeth the the counter argument that they had made no effort to fight for that right (therefore, not quite deserving it.)

Benjamin Franklin once said "They who sacrifice their essential liberty for a temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety"*, to those who would give up their essential liberty without even buying any national security, I wonder what he would say.

* (of course that's the same guy who would try to conscript Americans into the army, so yeah, it's hard to apply this one into national security, really.)
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個