Motion Debate on Implementing small class teaching

Madam President, I wish to start by responding to the remarks of Mr Martin LEE. According to him, we will often say nothing more after uttering "but". However, I must tell Martin that this time around, after saying "but", we will do something more. Since the Liberal Party supports the original motion of Ms Audrey EU, we will still vote for it even if Mrs Selina CHOW's amendment is negatived. We do not see any need for us to say "but" today.

Madam President, all Hong Kong people, including the industrial and business sector, are concerned about education, because we are well aware that with globalization and the advent of knowledge-based economy, the only asset we can leave to our children is knowledge. We also understand that the only thing that can give our children greater development prospects is knowledge. We may give them properties, but their prices may drop. We may give them stocks, but unless these are the kind of stocks we talked about yesterday, there may always be a day when no dividends can be awarded. Knowledge is the only asset we can pass on to our children with the sure belief that they will never lose it. For this reason, everybody is in fact very concerned about education, the motion topic today.

When it comes to gradual and orderly progress, Mr Andrew CHENG claims that the Liberal Party always wants everything to progress gradually and orderly. But is it not true that the Democratic Party has also been equally obstinate, demanding the instant achievement of everything, notably the direct elections in 2007 and 2008? Why do they insist so much on the instant achievement of everything? During the last debate on aiding the poor, I jokingly described the pan-democratic camp as the "Money-giving Club", that is precisely the point, because even if there is to be the instant achievement of everything, they will not be the ones to pay anyway. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has even expressed the view that an increase in the tax rate to 25% will solve all problems. They argue that small class teaching will not bring forth any adverse effects. I must say it can even be further asserted that small class teaching is definitely desirable. But the important point is that they have never considered where the money will come from. As a matter of fact, we have never claimed that there is no money for the implementation of this policy. We have only requested the Government to assess the additional resources required for implementing small class teaching. And according to the Government, additional resources are not required, only that the authorities would like to save some money for launching the "3+3+4" academic structure.

The education issues under the portfolio of the Secretary are not confined to those of secondary and primary education; he is in charge of the entire cause of education. The problem before him is: How is he going to allocate the funding he gets from taxpayers for the entire education sector? The population is shrinking due to a decline in the birth rate. Therefore, at the very beginning, kindergarten enrolment will drop. And, several years later, that is, four or five years later, Primary One intake will also decrease. Then, perhaps 10 years later, Secondary One intake may in turn drop. And, eventually, some 20 years later, the number of freshmen may also shrink. Therefore, it can be seen that the high birth rate a decade or two ago may have generated the great demand for university places today. In that case, should we now allocate more resources to university education and allocate less to primary education in view of the declining birth rate? I do, however, note a new argument that since the birth rate is low and the number of primary students will necessarily decrease in the coming few years, we should really grasp the opportunity and implement this straightforward policy, so that all teachers can stay behind and retain their jobs. This is an alternative way of looking at the situation.

I am of the view that the main objective of education provision in Hong Kong should be the enlightenment and nurturing of our children; the retention of jobs for teachers should be of secondary importance only. The main objective of education is naturally not the retention of jobs for teachers but the proper education of our children.

Mr Martin LEE, when referring to the need for training mentioned by Mrs Selina CHOW, argued that there was in fact no need for any training. He expressed the view that since the Secretary was able to assume duty without any prior training, teachers should not be required to receive any training. Mr Martin LEE must note that the need for "teacher training" is also mentioned in Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong's amendment to Mrs Selina CHOW's amendment to the original motion of Ms Audrey EU. He also refers to "training for teachers" on small class teaching. The need for teacher training is also mentioned in Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong's amendment. He has not dismissed training for teachers on small class teaching. Since Mr Martin LEE has responded in this way to Mrs Selina CHOW's proposal, I must point out to him that even Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong also talks about teacher training, although it is certainly not my intention to dwell on this point at any great lengths.

I must admit that I am no expert on education, so I am in no position to comment whether teachers handling large classes now must receive any training before switching to teaching small classes. I do not know too much about this occupation. The only thing I can say is that if there is a need, then training should be provided, but if there is no need, then no training should be conducted. I am not quite sure whether a teacher who has been teaching large classes of 35 students each should need to receive any training before switching to teaching a small class of just 25 students as proposed by Ms Audrey EU. But since many people hold that teacher training is important, it should be considered as long as it does not involve any extra expenditure, or if it can be ascertained that it can even reduce some spending. Anyway, the two amendments and the original motion are not really so different.

Mrs Selina CHOW thinks that small class teaching should first start in primary schools and then in secondary schools. Mr Andrew CHENG, however, criticized her for advocating gradual and orderly progress for everything. Should we first examine whether it is really possible to implement small class teaching at the same time for all 12 levels in the education system, that is, six levels in primary education and six others in secondary schools? Or, should we disregard all factors and considerations and seek to achieve all in one single stride, implementing small class teaching for all the 12 levels in primary and secondary education? Or, should we do the opposite, starting from primary schools first? I note that Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong's proposal on "starting with primary schools and junior secondary forms" is already a step closer to the principle of gradual and orderly progress, in contrast to the initial attempt to achieve everything in one single stride.

As a matter of fact, the differences among all of us are not so great. Therefore, it really does not matter so much whether it is one of the amendments or the original motion itself that is going to be passed. But which of them can be passed? I think all of them may well be passed. Even if the amendments are negatived, the original motion will still be passed. The most important message is that all of us are concerned about the education of our children. One may also question whether spending more money will always bring good results. Many Members think that spending more money will necessarily yield better results. But we do have some reservations about this. Looking back at what the Hong Kong SAR Government has done over the past years in such policy areas as education and health care, we will see that money does not necessarily guarantee good results.

Since the business sector and the Liberal Party are so concerned about education, then why do they still support the Secretary, arguing that we should not spend the $3 billion. or $800 million (for Ms Audrey EU claims that it is just $800 million, not $3 billion)? Actually, we do not have any strong views as to how we should proceed. The most important thing is that the money should be spent appropriately. We do not agree with pro-democracy Members that once money is spent on implementing small class teaching, "the whole sky will brighten up", all problems will be solved, and students will then be able to become successful businessmen or competent lawyers when they grow up, making a mark in society.

Lastly, I must repeat the point that the differences among us are not great indeed. Thank you, Madam President.