關事
報紙的國際新聞版愈縮愈細，證明香港人喜歡睇九鐵高層打交、警員互相開 槍、明星花邊新聞，多於地球上其他國家發生的事情。與其向港人曉以大義，什麽擴闊國際視野、全球一體化後提升自己競爭力等一輪廢話後，反而落得個徒勞無 功，倒不如將國際大事利害關係私有化，令港人知道GMT-8發生的事情，一樣可以與自己有關，倒可能令國際新聞版不再淪為國際花絮。
最近的國際大事，例如巴黎大學生示威，抗議新建議的勞工法。兩年內任意炒人，即是叫年輕人每兩年轉工一次，長期撈散，大學生身受其害，自然奮起還擊。牽一髮動全身，工會看見勞工法開始偏幫僱主，計劃聲援學生。
跟香港人有什麽關係？香港的廠家，繼鬥平未夠大陸同胞鬥之後，已經着手力爭上游，實行收購名牌。自己做客，與廠佬身份漸漸疏遠，當中尤以一些歐洲時裝牌子為對象。
某些歐洲百年老店，名字雖響，但經營不善，蝕錢連年，最適合亞洲人鯨吞後，將自己由飛機恤牛仔褲的廠佬，轉型成穿戴整齊歐洲名牌的新一代傳人。單是這牌頭，已經值一億歐羅。
不過，歐洲各種古靈精怪的法例，通常都是deal breaker。工會的勢力自不然是其中一項，一大班無法炒魷的員工，叫人如何turnaround？法國新勞工法例，直接叫人考慮是否要將法國公司剔除在獵物名單之外。
＊ ＊ ＊ ＊
另一單國際事件，是《經濟學人》黑底白字叫貝理雅早日離職走人，其中一個原因，是他要靠反對派支持，抵銷五十二名工黨叛徒，才可以成功通過schools bill。當然，《經濟學人》還有一大堆其他原因，有興趣自己可以慢慢睇。
這件事，香港人又如何用得着？特首要硬闖添馬艦政府總部上馬，數數票，原來只要反對派民主黨肯鬆手，到時應該可以夠票通過。如果貝理雅靠保守黨過關要辭 職，特首靠反對派護航一樣要劈炮才對。當然，英港政治有別，不可互相比較。但who cares？香港人不知就裏，政客講幾句就會似層層，入晒腦。
＊ ＊ ＊
以上的國際事件，未夠埋身貼肉，感覺不到切膚之痛？這一單你必定關心。泰國總理他信面臨倒台危機，一個不小心，處理不當，軍人隨時發難，變成軍法統治。到時你復活節長假期到曼谷做spa游水的嘆世界大計，將會落空，夠貼身未？
2 comments:
有無網友可簡述為何 Tony Blair 主張給學校更大自主權的法案在工黨內面對這麼大阻力 ? 會令低下階層的孩子因 , 例如不在名校區住 , 比以前更難進入高質素學校 ?
This was how Times explained the Bill to its readers.
Q:What will the Bill do?
A:The Bill gives schools the opportunity to establish a trust or to acquire one from an external partner such as a private company, a charity, a university or even an independent school.
The trust will run the school, establishing a majority of the governors and having control over issues such as the employment of staff. Trusts will be able to run groups of schools across the country, allowing for administrative savings and the spreading of expertise to raise academic standards.
Critically, the Bill does not impose anything on schools, but merely enables them to go down this route if they believe it will be of benefit to their pupils. Many of the critics on Labour's backbenches are concerned, however, that this will lead to the creation of a two-tier system in which successful, confident schools gain the benefits while weaker and less popular ones are left to struggle.
Q:Will parents and pupils see any changes?
A:In many cases they won't, since the powers available to trust schools are the same as those already enjoyed by foundation schools. The latter were the successors of the Tories' grant maintained schools favoured by parents such as Tony and Cherie Blair for their children. Labour abolished grant maintained schools in Mr Blair's first term, but the new trust schools bear remarkable similarities in many ways.
In other schools, the changes could occur quite quickly if head teachers and governors decide to pursue the trust route. After consulting parents, governing bodies can establish a trust by simple majority vote.
Other issues such as tougher disciplinary powers against disruptive pupils would be introduced as soon as the legislation becomes law. Help for parents to choose the most appropriate school would have to wait until 2007, since the deadline for entry to secondary schools next September will have passed.
Q:What is the intention of the reforms?
A:Tony Blair wanted a system of "independent state schools" responsible for raising academic standards and responding more directly to parental wishes. Local authorities were to be relegated to an advisory role, championing the interests of parents, while heads and governors shaped the school system together with private businesses, charities and other external partners.
Backbench opposition has forced the Government to temper some of these ambitions - local authorities will still have a strong role in shaping the local education system and there is much less talk now of a schools "market" than there was at the time of the White Paper in October. The reforms were sold as a revolutionary break with the existing state system when the White Paper came out, but now ministers talk of them as an evolution, building on reforms already enacted.
Ultimately, it will take years before we know whether this Education Bill is a landmark change or a damp squib. There is no "big bang" change unlike, for instance, the 1988 Education Reform Act that introduced the national curriculum, national testing and Ofsted inspections, and handed control of budgets to schools. This Bill has more to do with the state stepping back and creating the space for other providers to enter the education system - whether they actually do remains to be seen.
Q:Who opposes the Bill and why?
A:Teaching unions oppose trust schools for a number of reasons, ranging from ideological opposition to private companies running state schools to concern that a focus on educational structures will distract from efforts to raise classroom standards. Head teachers' leaders, who might be expected to favour the idea, have dismissed trust status as irrelevant. They predict that few schools will take up the reform.
Local authorities were hostile to the ban on proposals for new community schools. That has been lifted now, though Ruth Kelly retains a veto. Even so, many Labour authorities view the idea of an education market with intense suspicion and will do little to promote the reforms in practice.
Up to 100 backbench Labour MPs have also stated their opposition to the White Paper, based largely around concerns that it will produce a two-tier system in which pushy, middle class parents monopolise the best schools and poorer families lose out. Ms Kelly has sought to allay their fears that giving schools control over admissions will lead to more academic selection - though many remain unconvinced. Eminent critics such as Estelle Morris, the former Education Secretary, have asked why schools need to control their admissions unless it is to avoid accepting children who may be difficult to teach or have unsupportive parents.
Q:What does the evidence say about the Government's and the rebels' cases?
A:Mr Blair has repeatedly asserted that the present school system can not be defended when so many children, particularly from poorer backgrounds, fail to achieve at least five good GCSEs. His argument is that reform is necessary precisely because too many children are being let down - and that the way to raise standards is to harness the energies of people in business, universities and charitable organisations to improve opportunities for all pupils.
Both he and Ms Kelly have argued that the introduction of "choice" mechanisms in other countries has led to higher standards and greater parental satisfaction. That's true - except that this Education Bill gives parents few levers to exercise their choice, and certainly no financial ones. Councils will be expected to listen to their wishes and it is hoped that trust schools will be more responsive to parents. But there are no real mechanisms compelling them to do so and no penalties if they do not, unlike systems in the United States and Sweden, for instance, which rely on a form of voucher to make schools more responsive to parents.
Post a Comment