Diocese should respect ruling 尊重司法裁決繼續辦好教育

THE Court of Appeal has dismissed the Catholic Diocese's appeal in respect of the Education (Amendment) Ordinance 2004. It may appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. However, we think the Diocese should drop the matter. It should respect the ruling of the Court of First Instance and that of the Court of Appeal and abide by the Ordinance. Moreover, school sponsoring bodies must not lightly threaten to give up just because they area verse to the Ordinance. We believe it is an aim they should strive to achieve to improve their schools'management and better carry out their ideas of education by forming incorporated management committees (IMCs).

The court rejected the Diocese's counsel'sargument that the Ordinance is at odds with the BasicLaw on the grounds that the Basic Law provision thatthe system shall remain unchanged for fifty years is nota prescription for ossification. The government of the. SAR has the power to make policies to develop and improve its systems. The Diocese's counsel argued that the Ordinance fundamentally changed the previous education system and was thus in breach of Article 136 of the Basic Law. The court rejected thisview. It held that the Ordinance is aimed at makingschool management more transparent and more efficient. The judgement says the government has aright to "ensure that there is transparent public accountability for [aided schools'] proper use of public funds, that the services are managed efficiently and inthe best interests of the end users for whose benefitthe public funds have been allocated."

When it lost its judicial review case in 2006, the Diocese reacted vehemently, saying it would go so faras to surrender its right to run schools and pull out of the education sector. A statement it issued yesterday says that it is disappointed with the ruling but stresses that it "will continue to be a partner of the governmentin providing quality school education". We therefore have reason to believe the Diocese will refrain from surrendering its right to run schools. This position is welcome and commendable. The Diocese is the largest school sponsoring body in Hong Kong. It has long provided quality school education and gained recognition for its remarkable achievements. It is a vital force in education development in Hong Kong. It is certainly a piece of good news to the education sector that it will continue to provide school education.

So far the Methodist Church has maintained a tougher stance on the Ordinance than any other religious body that provides school services in the SAR. It is dead opposed to it. None of its eighteenprimary and secondary schools will have IMCs. It hasdeclared it will willingly surrender its right to run schools if the government wants to retract it when thedeadline comes.

Many schools have IMCs now. In fact, as far aswe know, none of the things have happened whichsome school sponsoring bodies fear may happen. Furthermore, the sponsoring body of a school mayhave an absolute majority in its IMC as it may appointup to 60% of its members. Is there any reason why any parent, teacher or alumnus on a school's IMC shouldwant to disrupt its management if its sponsoring body has good ideas of running it?

The Ordinance is aimed at fostering school school--basedmanagement. It is aimed at making school management more democratic and more efficient and increasing accountability to the public purse. It is hardto see how it would in any way work against any school or its sponsoring body. It is students that benefit from good school management. The government has postponed the deadline for compliance two years to July 2011. As the litigation has been long long--drawn drawn--out,school sponsoring bodies trying to put IMCs together may be pressed for time. The Education Bureau should find out if any of them have any difficulties and help them to overcome them so that all primary and secondary schools will abide by the Ordinance without difficulty to the benefit of their students.

明報社評2010.02.04

尊重司法裁決繼續辦好教育

上訴庭裁定天主教香港教區就《校本條例》上訴失敗，雖然教區還可以上訴到終審庭，不過，我們認為此事不應該繼續纏訟下去，應該尊重原訟庭和上訴庭的裁決，落實條例的規定。另外，辦學團體不應該因為不滿《校本條例》，輕言退出辦學，我們認為透過組織法團董事會，提升學校管理水平，更好地實踐教育理念，應該是辦學團體努力的目標。

上訴庭法官頒下的判辭，指出教區代表律師提出《校本條例》違反《基本法》，並不成立，法官認為不可以僵化理解特區「50 年不變」的講法，特區政府有權制定政策，發展及改進各項制度。至於教區代表律師指《校本條例》徹底改變特區原有教育制度，違反《基本法》第136 條，法官並不同意，認為《校本條例》只為提高校政透明度，增加學校管理效率。判辭又說，政府資助學校，必須確保公帑運用得宜，政府亦有權確保校政透明度，維護教育服務最終使用者的利益。

06 年司法覆核敗訴之時，天主教區反應激烈，曾有不惜交出辦學權，撤出本港教育的說法。不過，就上訴庭裁決，教區昨日的聲明，除了「感到遺憾」，但強調「仍會堅持與政府保持良好的伙伴關係，提供優質學校教育」。因此，有理由相信天主教區不會放棄辦學權，這是值得歡迎和讚賞的態度。天主教區是本港最大的辦學團體，長期以來，教區提供的優質學校教育，成績斐然，早獲肯定，也是推動香港發展的其中一股主要動力。教區繼續辦學，對本港整體教育事業，肯定是好消息。

迄今為止，辦學的宗教團體之中，以循道衛理聯合教會的態度最強硬，仍然堅決反對《校本條例》，該會轄下18 間中小學不會成立法團校董會，聲言到限期若政府要收回辦學權，他們願意交出。

事實上，根據已知情况，落實了《校本條例》的學校，並未出現令部分辦學團體擔心的事。另外，就算成立法團校董會，辦學團體校董人數仍然可佔達60% 60%，是，絕對多數，若辦學團體辦學理念良好，加入校董會的家長、教師和校友，哪有擾亂校政之理。

《校本條例》的主要精神是校本管理、校政民主化、問責及透明度，若確切落實，看不到對學校和辦學團體有何不利之處，而學校管理好了，得益的是學生。就落實《校本條例》，當局已經延期兩年，到2011 年77 月到期，由於訴訟蹉跎時日，若辦學團體願意成立法團校董會，可能出現時不我與困境，教育局應該主動關心辦學團體有些什麼困難，協助解決，使《校本條例》順利地在全港中小學落實，造福學生。

Glossary

averse /?'v ?:s/If you are averse to something, you do not likeit.ossification /??sIfI'keI(?)n/becoming hard like bone; becoming fixed andunchangeable.deadcompletely.