回復 94# Nomad

Wealth, just like reputation, and experience is gathered through time.  The weaker group will eventually catch up just like your school.

The underdog usually has an advantage of growing faster.
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 17:08 編輯

"it's never always a better performance that makes a firm survive - look at those oil companies."

Ofcourse it is not (the key here is ALWAYS, because it usually is).  Not all system is based on merit, and merit or goal is measure differently for different stakeholder.  

For a Christian, for example, he/she is probably more interested in getting the kid indoctrinated than educated.  For HK government, merit is basically based on getting an educated workforce.  

For the investor of a company, profit is a merit, and so is corporate governance, and corporate conscience.

The gatekeeper in HK education system is HK government monitored by the Legco.
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 23:30 編輯

The US constitution is kept being used in the debate like this.  What did the Constitution say?

The following will give an insight:

In Zelman v Simmons-Harris [2002]

The court rule that it is constitutional to allow the government voucher money goes to the religious school.


1) "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents a State from enacting laws that have the “purpose” or “effect” of advancing or inhibiting religion"

2) "There is no dispute that the program challenged here was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system. Thus, the question presented is whether the Ohio program nonetheless has the forbidden “effect” of advancing or inhibiting religion. "

3) "To answer that question, our decisions have drawn a consistent distinction between government programs that provide aid directly to religious schools and programs of true private choice, in which government aid reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals. While our jurisprudence with respect to the constitutionality of direct aid programs has “changed significantly” over the past two decades, our jurisprudence with respect to true private choice programs has remained consistent and unbroken. Three times we have confronted Establishment Clause challenges to neutral government programs that provide aid directly to a broad class of individuals, who, in turn, direct the aid to religious schools or institutions of their own choosing. Three times we have rejected such challenges.... "

4) "There are no “financial incentive” that “ske[w]” the program toward religious schools"

5) "In sum, the Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice. In keeping with an unbroken line of decisions rejecting challenges to similar programs, we hold that the program does not offend the Establishment Clause."

For a very simliar line of reason, in EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL. [1947], The court rule that it is constitution for government to fund the buses that send children to religious school.

In particular, because it serve a secular purpose
"Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools. "

You would wonder, with the seperation of Church and State, why is USA's holiday on Sunday but not Tuesday, on Christmas but not Lunar New Year?

The court gives us an answer.

"Moreover, it is common knowledge that the first day of the week has come to have special significance as a rest day in this country. People of all religions and people with no religion regard Sunday as a time for family activity, for visiting friends and relatives, for late sleeping, for passive and active entertainments, for dining out, and the like. "Vast masses of our people, in fact, literally millions, go out into the countryside on fine Sunday afternoons in the Summer. . . ." Sunday is a day apart from all others.  The cause is irrelevant; the fact exists. It would seem unrealistic for enforcement purposes and perhaps detrimental to the general welfare to require a State to choose a common day of rest other than that which most persons would select of their own accord. For these reasons, we hold that the Maryland statutes are not laws respecting an establishment of religion.... "

In other words, yes it has a Christian beginning, but it is a custom of the people.

Not convinced?


The Legislature is using government money to hire a chaplain to gives a prayer to each opening.  It is constitutional, too!

The court says
"In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

In other words, yes it is religious, but it is custom and history of the people.
回復 88# Nomad

HK is ALSO changing the administration.  (Which eventually lead to the Catholi challenging it and losing the legal battle with the government.)

You are the one that miss the point all along.
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/7 00:10 編輯

Continuing on the constitution, we debate about Affirmative action.

In all three case of affirmative action, affirmative action is found to be uncontitutional:

Bakke v. Regents, Univ. of California (1978)
Grutter v Bollinger (2003)
Parents Involved v Seattle School District (2007)

What is uncontitutional about it?  In the earliest case
"The fatal flaw in petitioner's preferential program is its disregard of individual rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. . Such rights are not absolute. But when a State's distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on ancestry or the color of a person's skin, that individual is entitled to a demonstration that the challenged classification is necessary to promote a substantial state interest.  Petitioner has failed to carry this burden. For this reason, that portion of the California court's judgment holding petitioner's special admissions program invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment must be affirmed. "


The judge has something to say about the arguement used.  (The affirmative action here is again ruled to be unconstitutional)  Can you see the merits basis for competition here in use?

"First, there does not appear to have been any consideration of the use of race-neutral means to increase minority business participation in city contracting. Second, the 30% quota cannot be said to be narrowly tailored to any goal, except perhaps outright racial balancing. It rests upon the "completely unrealistic" assumption that minorities will choose a particular trade in lockstep proportion to their representation in the local population.

Nothing we say today precludes a state or local entity from taking action to rectify the effects of identified discrimination within its jurisdiction. If the city of Richmond had evidence before it that nonminority contractors were systematically excluding minority businesses from subcontracting opportunities, it could take action to end the discriminatory exclusion. Where there is a significant statistical disparity between the number of qualified minority contractors willing and able to perform a particular service and the number of such contractors actually engaged by the locality or the locality's prime contractors, an inference of discriminatory exclusion could arise.  Under such circumstances, the city could act to dismantle the closed business system by taking appropriate measures against those who discriminate on the basis of race or other illegitimate criteria.  In the extreme case, some form of narrowly tailored racial preference might be necessary to break down patterns of deliberate exclusion.

Nor is local government powerless to deal with individual instances of racially motivated refusals to employ minority contractors. Where such discrimination occurs, a city would be justified in penalizing the discriminator and providing appropriate relief to the victim  of such discrimination. Even in the absence of evidence of discrimination, the city has at its disposal a whole array of race-neutral devices to increase the accessibility of city contracting opportunities to small entrepreneurs of all races.

Because the city of Richmond has failed to identify the need for remedial action in the awarding of its public construction contracts, its treatment of its citizens on a racial basis violates the dictates of the Equal Protection Clause."
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/10 19:38 編輯

The voucher's money also goes to the school directly.  Notice that the money is NEVER in the parent's account?  The individual choice is only on which school to choose from.  Simliarly, there is a geniune choice in HK for school.  (The current subsidy arrangement is based on the number of students enrolled, just as it would happen in a voucher system, depending on age/grade, ranges 32-56k a year)

Ofcourse in the end there is a limitation in choice set by the government.  Notice that even the voucher system has a limit on what school the voucher can go to.  There has to be some minimum bar that the school has to pass before asking for subsidary.   HK is also trying a voucher system for kindergarten school, it has exactly the same problem here.

For IS school, the question is WHY they do not join the government subsidy program?  Why are they UNABLE to enlist in the government subsidy program?  MOST of the schools in Hong Kong is private in the sense that they are only subsidized and regulated, not directly managed.  You are NOT paying for quality, but paying to be DIFFERENT (Segregated in Wenweipao description), so different that the school falls out the SECULAR parameter setup by the government, that is the difference.

Suppose HK also have a voucher system like US, some international schools will still not eligible for the voucher (or they will refuse to recieve the funding to avoid regulation).  With reputation and experience of the charity school, they will still get most of the vouchers (and hence school funding).

For minority interest, there steel making group in US, or the wood selling group in US also dominiate the freedom of US customer's freedom to buy cheaper goods.  If you ever buy diary product, steel product, wood product in US, chances is that your choice is limited because some interest group is 'supporting' the motion (and the party proudly admit it, too).  In democracy, political group siding with special interest group is a flaw that comes with the benefit.

The democrat also recieve support from other groups.  Just because it acknowlege one, does it meant it does not recieve support from others?  When it is one person one vote, if they side with any one interest group and 'significantly' harm the greater group, they will be voted out.

Again, it has to do with the fact that political party is a 'bundled package', there are greater issue over little item.
Here is what the government ask for from a DDS school

http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManage ... erence_documents%20(feb2010)r7-revised%206.pdf

Here is the mechanism of choosing school for highschool in HK


高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies