Student Senator I 教務委員會本科生代表一 Lee Kai Tik Jack 李啟迪

我認為香港大學在本科生課程，應保持現時的百分之二十的非本地生限額，而當中的一半應該

非來自中國內地的非本地生。研究課程則應將非本地生限額定為百分之五十。



非本地生的數量是大學國際化的一頂重要指標，在各大學排行榜上，是計分的項目。對學生而

言，非本地生在港大就讀，固然可促進文化交流，擴闊國際視野。對來港的非本地生而言，他

們可在港大認識香港和中國。非本地生現時須繳付較高昂的學費，亦有補助大學收入的作用。

基於以上的好處，非本地生就讀港大，本質是相得益彰的。



不過，非本地生對本地生會構成資源競爭。現時，香港公立的大學採取雙軌收生制，理論上是

不影響本地生入讀的機會。但長遠而言，大學亦提供了教學的資源予非本地生，減少取錄非本

地生，當可使用原有的資源加開本地生的學位。奇怪的是，教資會資助的本科學位在一九九七

年以來幾乎沒有上升過，維持在一萬八千個的水平。現政府對普及專上教育的對策是開立更多

私立院校。究竟非本地生入學是否導致本地學位數目無法上升的原因則無從得知。



宿舍宿位的分配體現了非本地生與本地生直接的資源衝突。香港大學現時所有舍堂加上住宿學

院的宿位比政府對現有學生規模的要求尚欠二千個。現時的宿位分配政策，是厚侍非本地生

的。首先，他們入住的宿位受公帑資助。計分方法上，他們是長期獲得滿分。而無法分配宿位

的非本地生，也能得到校方資助租住私人樓宇。本地生對宿位的需求甚為殷切，但在現行計分

和分配制度下，不少居住非常偏遠地區的本地生也無法入住宿舍。非本地生加入私人租屋市

場，也推高了租金水平，使本地生更負擔在外租屋的租金。



研究生收生方面，現時來自中國內地的非本地生已佔學額七成，比例已屬失衡。雖說研究院的

課程是擇優取錄，無分國藉。但過於單元的學術團隊，是會影響研究的文化以致成果。再者，

本地生入讀研究院課程的機會大幅減少，妨礙了香港的學子晉身學術界的機會。故此，研究生

收生的限額有必要調整，確保本地生的學額。



學額的分配，應只從資源分配角度考慮。或許雙方存在文化甚至是族群的衝突，但這些不應是

學額分配的考慮因素。

President of the previous Union Session 去屆會長 Chan Koon Hong 陳冠康

Chairperson of Campus TV 校園電視主席 Mok Ka Hei 莫嘉熙

香港大學不應減少對非本地學生的招收學額



「明德格物」，是香港大學的校訓，意指培養自身的道德操守，並探求各事物之間的道理。



大學，被稱為社會的縮影。在其中發生的事、出現的現象，都和現今香港中的時事有著相似之

處。非本地學生選擇於香港大學－－一所屬於香港本地的大學，和本地生一同學習，就仿如外

國公司於香港投資，長期理應對「外國」及「香港」兩方有益。不但未有因瓜分投資機會而導

致本地有損失，更可從外來引入財富促進發展，本地投資者不應因外來資金而發出怨言。



第一，非本地學生能提升香港大學學生的知識水平。對於本地學生，香港教育制度中的大學聯

招計劃(JUPAS)允許本地學生對各大專學府的各種學位作出志願排名，即或成績未如理想，學

生亦有離開香港繼續升學、投入社會工作等選擇，實有多重保障。相對地，非本地學生若要希

望獲得香港大學的學位，必須要有離鄉別井、奮力圖強的心理準備，以及處理到港後起居飲食

各種問題。假如沒有十足的把握能夠在香港獲得學位，必然不會選擇貿然破釜沈舟，以自己的

未來作賭注。基於大學沒道理去為非本地生降低入學門檻，在一方有多重保障而另一方必須肯

定自己有走進香港大學校園的資格的情況下，入學的非本地生成績應較好。若說成績不能反映

一個人的知識水平，那更多的非本地學生代表更多的外界接觸、更多的知識來源、更多的文

化，相信在大學內能聚集更多不同方面的知識。簡括而言，非本地生入學是為大學帶來即時益

處的。



第二，外來知識能促進本地學術研究，為未來發展帶來優勢。如上段提及，非本地學生會帶來

不同的文化背景和不同的生活習慣，而這樣的不同亦塑造、培養了非本地生不同的思維方式及

不同的價值觀。當一群人之中出現不同的想法和行動取向，因著人與人之間的比較以及求問求

真的精神，這一種文化碰撞引起的火花既能促進大家再次對目前慣常的做法尋找原因，亦對學

生處理未有而將來到的新事物時有更多的批判性思考，於未來學術上的發展帶來更有系統的比

較及更多層次的分析。



第三，本地學生應更願意接受非本地學生。在金融社會中，若最佳投資機會被其他公司奪去，

只能慨歎自己未能把握機會，而及後需自力更新提升競爭力，或與其他公司合作。在學校中，

學生應以良好競爭的心態與其他同學相處，在學術上變得更進取，並與不同同學互相切磋，樂

於接受不同的意見和想法，一同走在大學之路上。



最後，香港大學的非本地學生的招收學額只佔總收生學額約百分之十五，而我認為此數字並不

算多，能夠平衡本地學生及非本地學生的比例，讓他們互相切磋，其好處令我覺得香港大學應

維持現時的非本地學生的招收學額，不應減少對非本地學生的招收學額。

Editor-in-chief of Undergrad 學苑總編輯 Leung Kai Ping 梁繼平

自 1996 年大學教育資訊委員會（教資會）發表《香港高等教育》報告書，提出未來高等教育需吸納

更多非本地生，到 2003 年董建華提出發展香港成為「區域教育樞紐」，大學「國際化」成為發展趨

勢。除體現於推動英語授課、提高國際學術排名、增加交換生及外國交流計劃等之外，招收非本地生

成為重要手段。政府將非本地生限額由 2%大幅增加至現時 20%，例如在 2011/12 年度，八大院校共

取錄 2,004名非本地學生入讀第一年學士學位課程，約佔整體人數 14%，數字按年不斷上升。



香港為中西文化薈萃之國際城市，香港大學更是存留英殖遺風之百年學府，「國際化」指標更是首屈

一指。港大招收更多非本地生，誠然能締促進文化交流、引入各國專才、拓展國際視野、提高國際排

名等等。若與鄰國頂尖學府新加坡國立大學與東京大學比較，國際生比率分別為 20%及 15%，故香港

訂立非本地生上限為 20%亦屬合理。社會亦有聲音指招收非本地生會加劇學位及資源爭奪，然而在現

行政策下，教資會只會資助 20%核准上限中的 4%非本地生人數，其餘學額則由院校自負盈虧。以

2010/11 年度為例，教資會的核准收生人數為 14 580，實際總收生人數為 16,054 人（超額

110.1%），當中經聯招獲取錄為 11,660 人，經非聯招（副學位、高級程度會考、國際預科文憑等學

歷）為 2,535 人，而非本地生為 1,859 人。所以整體本地學生為 14,195 人，佔教資會核准收生人數

的97.4%，即絕大部份非本地生均透過核准學額以外進入本地大學，與本地學額未必構成直接衝突。



然而，香港本地大學招收非本地生出現的問題主要有三。第一，大學以「國際化」之名行「大陸化」

之實，以香港大學 2013/14 年度之收生數字為例，538 名的非本地生當中，有超過三分之二為內地

生（329 名），有違港大校方原先訂立內地生不超過非本地生 50%之目標。若非本地生學額只傾斜於

內地生，根本不能達成學生國籍多元化、促進文化交流、開展國際視野云云。加上，香港大學能登上

國際排名高峰，有賴超越牛津哈佛的國際化指標（以外地學生和教職員所佔比例等因素計算），但實

質上是輸入大量內地生，甚有「發水」之嫌，無怪最新的大學排名均指出港大於「國際化」評分下

跌。



第二，非本地學生入讀本地大學之學費約為 10 至 13 萬（港大為 13.5 萬），雖遠高於本地學生之花

費，但仍低於每個學士學額之 20 萬成本，故最後仍須以納稅人之公帑補貼外地生，而未能入讀資助

學額之本地學生反倒不獲資助，政府不以本地學生利益優先之做法有欠公允。



第三，在不斷招收更多非本地生的同時，近十年來本地大學的資助學額絲毫無上升，入讀率維持低水平

之 18%，如何能令整體本地學生得益？相較美國之 72.6%、英國之 59.5%、日本之 47.7%及新加坡之

33.7%，香港可謂望塵莫及。而政府提倡發展「區域教育樞紐」也只是「假大空」，新加坡早於 1998

年邀請世界多間頂尖學府到當地開辦課程及分校，並鼓勵當地私立院校提高質素。反觀香港政府鼓吹教

育商品化、對自資院校缺乏監管，任由萃萃學子被迫入讀高收費、低認受之副學士或自資院校，卻無足

夠大學學額作銜接。香港政府撒手放任，本地學生苦叫無門，難怪將矛頭指向愈來愈多的非本地生。



故在推崇大學「國際化」、廣招非本地生的同時，院校應對內地生設限額，避免收生傾斜而淪為大陸

化，同時應檢討非本地生學費，減低以納稅人之公帑補貼外地生的情況，並將多收之學費資助本地學生

升讀自資大學學位或私立院校。長遠而言，政府應增加本地大學資助學位及具質素之私立院校，推動大

專教育普及化。讓港大能真正立足香港，面向國際。

Popularly Elected Union Councilor V 普選評議員五 Wong Wing Long Leo 黃穎朗

香港大學的收生政策近十年迅速國際化。根據港大2012年的數字，現時本科生之中有 22%為

海外學生，而2011-2012年度有近25%新生為海外學生，顯示大學招收非本地生的比例正在

上升。全部海外學生中，有超過一半來自中國內地；而連同研究生一併計算，港大約有34%的

海外學生，當中有近66%來自內地。



國際化的收生政策對港大確有不少正面影響。香港大學教育資助委員會的文件表明，招收非本

地生可以擴闊本地學生的教育經驗和觀點、提高他們的溝通技巧、促進文化互動、豐富學生群

體、加強與海外院校的聯繫、帶來高質素的學生和維持一所國際大學的地位。而大學管理層最

關注的，相信是國際化的收生對大學排名的效果。不少公佈排名的機構，均以非本地生的數字

衡量一所大學是否達到國際水平，間接令本港院校在近年不斷提高國際學生的比例。



可是，筆者認為我們在評估現行收生政策的成效、及利弊時，應回歸最基本的兩條問題：

一、 取錄更多海外學生是否大學步向國際化的必要條件？

二、 取錄海外學生的同時需要取捨甚麼？這種取捨是否值得？應怎樣平衡存在矛盾的目標？



取錄更多海外生 非國際化條件



就第一個問題，筆者不認同取錄更多海外學生是大學步向國際化的條件的說法。一所大學是否

國際級大學，最重要的因素應是「硬件」和「軟件」（例如教學/研究設施（如圖書館）、教務

人員資歷、課程設計、研究和教學水平、學生發展工作等）是否達到國際水準才是國際化的條

件。只有各項因素的配合，才可建構一所可持續發展的國際級大學。盲目追求取錄更多海外學

生，根本不能提升大學的教學和研究質素，又怎能說得上是國際化的條件呢？



此外，從平日的觀察所得，海外學生較多與其他海外學生溝通和進行學術活動。基於本身的文

化和生活方式，除了有住宿舍堂的學生外，本地學生與海外學生的交流和接觸實在不多，可見

單純提高海外學生的比例根本無助增進兩類學生的交流。要提高學生的國際視野，最根本的方

法是舉辦更多促進海外生和本地生交流的活動， 例如在課程中引入加強兩類學生合作的元素，

並增加本地生到海外交流的機會。盲目追求海外學生的數目，是本末倒置之舉。



本地生為主 海外生為輔



就第二個問題，我們需要了解到，香港的高等教育資源是有限的。取錄更多非本地生，意味本

地學生接受高等教育的機會減少。根據最新的教資會數據，每年獲資助的新入學學位佔全港中

學畢業生人數僅約17%，未能獲得資助學位的學生只能透過自資學位、副學位、文憑課程等接

受高等教育。因此，其中一個關鍵問題，是如何在取錄海外學生帶來的優勢與香港本地生的接

受高等教育的機會作出平衡。筆者認為，作為一所國際級大學，港大固然不應拒優秀海外生於

門外；但同時，作為香港首屈一指的學府，也有責任為香港培養更多人才，以提升本地學生知

識水平和涵養作為辦學宗旨。因此，港大的本科生收生政策應以「本地生為主、海外生為輔」

為主軸；並就現時取錄的海外生佔新生近四分之一的情況作出檢討。



調低海外生比例 並增加交換生數目



筆者認為，其中一個最切實、有效、可行的方法，是一方面調低錄取海外生的比例，另一方面

大幅增加本科生參與交換生計劃的機會。海外生的比例可以調低至 20%以下，即每年新入學海

外生比現時減少約200名，並撥歸本地收生；而海外生的地區比例（例如超過一半海外生來自

內地），也有需要檢討。交換生計劃方面，2012年的數字顯示，969名港大學生在該年度參

與交換生計劃，佔全校本科生8%。以三年制課程推算，大概只有 25%本科生能參與交換生計

劃。這個比例假如大幅提高至約40%，則意味每年到外地交流的港大生及到港大交流的海外生

都會增加約500人。這樣，港大不但可以維持國際化的學術環境，更可以實質地提升港大生的

國際視野。而兩項政策的調整，淨影響是每年比現時多300名海外學生在港大就讀或交流。



增加交換生計劃的參與學生數目，相對增加取錄更多海外學生而言，有兩項重要優勢。第一，

交換生計劃的宗旨是同時增加大學內的同學和參與計劃的港大生的國際視野，每增加一名交換

生在港大交流，都代表多一名港大生到海外交流。但是，取錄更多海外學生，只會佔去更多本

地學生的學位，當中獲益最多的是在香港接受高等教育的海外生，而香港學生的得益則難以量

化（上文分析顯示本地生受惠有限）。



第二，從更廣的角度看，取錄愈多海外學生，其實是在畢業生求職市場製造更大的競爭。本身

競爭並非壞事，但香港的經濟已漸趨飽和，製造更多本地生與海外生的競爭只會減少本地畢業

生的就業選擇，對本地畢業生帶來衝擊。優化交換生計劃正正避免這種衝擊，同時維持大學的

國際競爭力。



綜上所述，調低非本地生限額是利多於弊的措施。筆者建議海外生佔全部本科生的比例調低至

20%以下，而另一方面在數年內將本科生能夠參與交換生計劃的比例提高至約40%。港大立足

香港，有責任以香港學生的學術發展為首要考慮，不應為招收海外學生而犧牲本地生的利益。

Popularly Elected Union Councilor IV 普選評議員四 So Cheuk Yiu 蘇卓堯

The issue of insufficient places for local students to enter statutory university has been exist

for a decade. Recently, there are voices on the society suggests to decrease the number of

quota for international students as to offer more opportunity for local students to study in

universities in Hong Kong.



Introducing international students into campus could lead to variant level of advantages and

disadvantages.



According to the report "Report of the Strategic Dialogues on Internationalization and

Engagement with Mainland China", admitting non-local students could bring several benefits.

For instance, non-local students can expose different cultures to local students and help build

up the relationship with overseas communities. Overseas students could also help HKU to

establish good reputation in the world. Moreover, introducing high quality students could

enrich the learning environment.



On the other hand, the disadvantage is quite obvious; the quota for local students decreased

and will lead to lessen the opportunity for them to study in HKU. As mentioned in the report

"Aspirations for the Higher Education System in Hong Kong" prepared by the University

Grants Committee, only about 18% of the 17-20 age group can enter UGC-funded institutions

which include 7 statutory universities in Hong Kong1. This clearly shows that there are

insufficient places for local students to study in universities.



In order to maintain the balance between opportunity for local students to study in HKU and

provide students more chance to expose to different culture, I recommend the university to

consider the following suggestions.

1. The maximum percentage of quota for international students remain unchanged at

20% as defined in the policy which implemented by the HKSAR government.2

2. The ratio of non-local quotas for students from different countries or areas should be

equivalent.

3. Remaining quotas that for non-local students from different countries should transfer

to the category for local students especially for non-JUPAS local students.

This could allow the university to keep its internationality and provide more chances for local

students to enjoy quality undergraduate life in HKU.



The University of Hong Kong should also review its own non-local students admission

policy on the ratio of students from overseas and Mainland China. As mentioned in the report

from University Grants Committee, "Currently, the majority of our non-local students are from

the Mainland."1, this implies that students from Mainland China should be classified into the

category of non-local student. The report also stated that "Internationalisation is not the same

thing as developing relationships with Mainland China and encouraging Mainland students to

study in Hong Kong."1 and "internationalisation requires a much greater diversity of non-
local students"1, which indicated that the ratio of non-local students from different parts of

the world should be similar in term of internationalization.



To conclude, the percentage of maximum quota for international students should remains

unchanged while the university should limit the number of students from different countries

and the ratio for each region should be equivalent. Meanwhile, vacant places for non-local

students should convert to places for local students. This could help the university to

maintain its image as an international institution and at the same time still provide rational

chances for local students.



Reference:

1. University Grants Committee. Accessed on 12th of December, 2012. Aspirations for the

Higher Education System in Hong Kong. Page 29. Retrieved from

http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/doc/ugc/publication/report/her2010/her2010-rpt.pdf

2. Legislative Council. (2012). LCQ18: Non-local students enrolled in UGC-funded institutions.

[Press release]. Retrieved from

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201212/05/P201212050310.htm

Popularly Elected Union Councilor II 普選評議員二 Kuang Kai Shan 鄺凱珊

立場：反對



首先，香港大學的抱負提及：“香港大學躋立國際優等學府之首列，標領亞洲，懷抱中華，曠

眼世界。教學科研，是必竭心悉力，交流廣益......薈萃天下英才。’



以及其使命：“群策群力，靈活通變，研精學術，共相勉助，藉此培育優秀學者，吸聚中外人

才，使他們安心留在港大，在啟發創意、鼓勵學習，以及可思想自由、探究和表達的文化氛圍

中各展所長。”



由此可見， 大學對於培育中外人才十分重視。而現時香港大學對於非本地生的收生名額雖逐年

增加，如參照 2013-2014 年度收生情況，內地生收生名額為 329 人，海外生為 209 人，而聯

招及非聯招的本地收生名額為 2906 人，相較之下，非本地生名額其實只占約 16%，對於保持

大學多元文化交流是有其積極作用而不會過分佔用大學資源。



再者，內地生收生人數占申請人數的百分比少於 3%，又海外收生所占百分比少於 7%，可見收

生精英制。因此我認為，對於吸納人才的原意我們不應該干預收生名額的設定，反之，應該樂

于接納這群帶有不同文化背景以及優秀才能的人士。假如大學決定調低非本地生收生名額，那

麼應該如何設定限制的名額呢？又應該如何向公眾交代此決定之餘仍能保障香港大學作為國際

優等學府廣納人才的形象呢？



因此，本人反對香港大學收生應調低非本地生限額。

Popularly Elected Union Councilor I 普選評議員一 Chow Chun Ming 鄒俊明

Representative of Social Sciences Society 社會科學學會代表 Sham Kwan Ho 沈君浩

踏入二十一世紀，香港大學有追求國際化的願景，故開始招收來自內地及其他國家的學生來校

就讀本科生學位。現時，其限額大概佔總體收生百分之二十，而實際上每年招收的國際生人數

亦大致如此。然而，自新高中文憑試實施起，每年均有一萬多名考生的成績屆"三三二二"的最

低要求卻未能升達本地資助大學。因此，亦有人把問題的原因歸咎於本地資助大學過多地收取

非本地生，令本地學生未能入讀。到底，非本地生與本地生的關係，是否勢成水火，互相爭奪

資源？恕筆者未能苟同，原因有二：

首先，古語有云：大學之道，在明明德，在親民，止於至善。大學的目標，在於令學生培養個

人品行，塑造其成為一個君子。這亦和港大校訓明德格物有所呼應。而在這些目標中，從來亦

沒有提及非本地生不應來港大就讀，亦未有指出香港大學必定要成為香港人的大學。若大學的

教學純粹是為了令學生有所成長，品格更為完全，非本地生亦理應不被排擠在外。

再者，其實本地生與非本地生之間，亦未必只存在單純的鬥爭，相反兩者應該可以相輔相成。

作為社會科學學院的學生，對此感受甚深。例如一節政治導修課中，一名來自以色列的非本地

生談到以巴衝突的內情，可能比書本的刻板描寫更為透徹。所謂的文化衝擊，文化融和，旨在

令不同學生在同一校園下互相感染交流。這培訓了兩批學生的容人之量，以及對人最基本的尊

重。故此，調低限額實會令此一利處泯滅，不利學生的成長。

或有人認為二十個百分比的比例過多，應作適度的調低，最終就可以給予香港的學生更多學

位。不過，筆者卻認為百分之二十這一標準已經十分合理。因為若限額過少，非本地生就會完

全變成一群無人理會的絕少數，而且人數之少會容易造成忽略。總括而言，港大不應調低招收

非本地生的限額。

Representative of Science Society 理學會代表 Ngai Ting Hong 魏庭康

近年，中港間的矛盾日益白熱化；雙非媽媽、搶奶粉等問題都挑起了不少謾罵。問題背後，直

指現時政府投放過量資源矛內地人，間接剥削港人應享有的資源，將港人納稅所得的轉贈他

人。同樣地，在各大專院校的圈子中，亦有聲音指近年各大學取錄內地生的人數急劇上升，削

弱本地學生的競爭力，到底這是中港間矛盾白熱化的結果，抑或是真有其事？如果事實如此，

香港大學作為香港大專院校的一份子，又應否調低非本地生收生限額？



現時各資助院校的學士學位課程可招收的非本地學生人數上限為有關課程的核准學額指標的

20%；翻查政府網頁資料，在 2004 年前，院校招收非本地生的比例上限只為 8%，其後改為

10%，並再於 2008 年大幅調高比例限額致 20%。根據香港大學的數據，本年(2013-2014)共

取錄 538 位非本地生學士，其中有 329 名及 209 名分別來自內地及海外，佔全體學士人數

15.6%；對比 2007-2008 年 299 (259 及 40) 位的 10.2%數字相比，有超過 5 個百份點的增

長。雖然如此，這數字似乎未如現時所指，內地生佈滿港大整個校園。實情為，香港大學在深

造學位上(Postgraduate programme)，取錄不少內地生，其中以自資全日制的授課式深造學位

最多(Taught postgraduate programme)，有超過 1000 位學生；在研究式深造學位(Research

postgraduate programme (MPhil + PhD) )，亦有類似情況，有 400多位學生。



這樣的數據反映，現時的說法可能是由於大量修讀深造課程的內地生所導致。不過仍然值得關

注的，是內地生與海外生取錄比例的問題。取今年的情況作例子，內地生人數佔全體非本地生

人數的 61%，與港大在針對非本地生的政策中提出希望取錄到 1:1 的內地生與海外生的目標；

雖然在入學申請的數字上，內地生的申請有近 12500 位，而海外生的申請只有約 3000 位，

在維持學生質素及能力上來說，是無可厚非；但香港大學作為香港的第一最高學府，應該以提

升整體實力以吸引更多優秀的海外生為目標。只取錄成績優秀的內地生，是不足以令港大的學

生有更多與其他國家同學交流的機會，亦不足以培養同學在全球化下面對各國競爭的能力。



香港大學作為全球一流的學府，取錄不同的非本地生是全球的大趨勢，但要確保的是，收生人

數不能傾向內地方面，而是要平衡內地生與海外生人數的比例，否則是不能有效提升港大學生

的整體質素。

Representative of Medical Society 醫學會代表 Chan Man Yu, Don 陳文裕

我認為港大在考慮降低非本地生比例之先，當考量如何劃定非本地生的各個組成部分，從而維

持本地與非本地生的互利關係。

香港大學作為先進學府，理應容納世界各地之學子，以促進各地文化與知識之交流，以著重惠

及本地學生，擴闊其視野、增長其學識修養，方能成為世界學術進展助力之一。香港作為國際

都會，對海外人才的確需求殷切。

現時支持降低非本地生比例的論點主要繫於本地中學生人數遠比大學學額多，學位供不應求。

大學學位固然是當今主要求職門檻之一，於是非本地生佔有一定學生比例，變相是減少本地人

的就業機會。

此外另一論點是內地生佔非本地生比數過大，對本地生之國際視野或文化學識皆無所裨益，更

甚至雪上加霜，醞釀出本地生對內地生的抗拒及反感。

當大家將目光聚焦於香港大學之上，自然認覺得港大應以港人福祉為先。然而事實上，香港的

大學學位從未足夠。回顧往史，香港曾經只有一所香港大學，連中三甚至小六也需臨歷考試篩

選。今時今日香港正轉型為知識型社會，抽減非本地生學位顯然無助長遠教育發展，更未必能

解燃眉之急。增設大學、多建立與海外大學的連結，大量增加本地生所能觸及之學位，才是長

遠之道。

我認為有關招收非本地生，最為值得商榷之處是內地生所佔比重。據規定，外地生最多可與內

地生佔有同樣數量學額，但近年外地生數量遠遠未及標準上限。宏觀到底在如此比例下，招收

非本地生能否達至推廣國際文化交流，成果昭然可視。若論到如何讓招收非本地生一舉收預期

之效，當務該是加收外地生，提升校園內的文化種族多元性。

Representative of Law Association 法律學會代表 Li Chee Wing 李芷穎

香港大學素以其國際化教育為譽， 上至校長，下至學生均強調國際視野、開放思維。以此為目

標，香港大學制定了相應的收生政策，吸納不同文化背景的海外學生。然而，吸納非本地生亦

非達致此目的的唯一途徑。按香港現實情況而言，香港大學調低非本地生收生限額確無可避

免。



香港大學於去年錄取新生時，非本地生佔總數之百分之十六，較十年前（百分之三）足足增長

五倍。反觀本地生之入學率於十年間僅微升百分之十。再者，相比鄰近地區，香港本地學生接

受高等教育的機會仍遠低於台灣、南韓及內地沿海省份等地，情況未如理想。即使考生符合高

等院校普遍入學要求成績， 仍有大約三成人不獲錄取。有學者推算資助大學學額須增至約三萬

個，較現時多一倍才能錄取所有達到最低入學門檻之學生。於此前提下，大學仍將資源投放於

增加錄取非本地生而忽視本地生對學位之需求乃不公不智之舉。資源錯配以致本地大學學位供

不應求，提供高限額予非本地生更使情況惡化。



現時香港大學非本地生限額為所有入學本科生的百分之二十，當中百分之四為有政府資助學

位。推算之下，每年約有一百三十多名非本地生佔用香港本地學生的之資源於港就讀大學。調

低非本地生限額以減低對非本地生之資助學位可避免資源錯配，確保本地學生升讀大學的機會

得以提高。



有學者提出調低非本地生限額會導致大學之國際化程度減弱，間接令教育質素下降。然而， 非

本地本科生數量並非衡量大學國際化程度之單一條件。雙贏政策如提高交換生數目、增加國際

學術交流平台、調低學生到海外實習的門檻等更為有效。



香港作為知識型社會，日後發展均由 接受高等教育的下一代帶領。香港大學應調低錄取非本地

生限額，以重新分配資源培育為香港建設未來的一群。



The University of Hong Kong (HKU) is renowned for its excellent international exposure.

Members of the University, from the Vice-Chancellor to ordinary students, emphasize a lot on

international insight and open-mindedness. The University has implemented related policies

to fulfil such aims and admit overseas students with distinct cultural backgrounds.

Nevertheless, admitting non-local students is never the only way to achieve the above goals.

Base on the status quo in Hong Kong, HKU should reduce the maximum intake of non-local

students.



In the previous year, 16% of all newly admitted students in HKU are non- locals. The figure is

approximately 5 times of that 10 years ago (3%). However, the intake of local students has

only increased for 10% in 10 years. Additionally, the proportion of students receiving

territorial education is still very low when comparing with neighbour countries, such as

Taiwan, South Korea and Mainland cities. Worse still, only 70% of the students who fulfilled

the minimum requirements of receiving territorial education can be admitted. Scholars

suggest that 30,000 admission quotas for local applicants will be required to admit all

students who passed the threshold. In such circumstances, it is unwise and unfair for the

University to insist on placing resources on non-local students. Such misallocation of

resources is the main factor contributing to the shortage of local students’ admission

quotas. With the increase of intake of non-local applicants, the situation has been worsening

in the previous 10 years.



Nowadays, the maximum intake of non-local applicants to HKU is 20% of all newly admitted

students, in which 4% is funded by the Government. It means that there are about 130 non-
local students occupying the resources of local students each year. Reducing the maximum

intake of non-local applicants to HKU, particularly government-funded quotas, is essential to

raise the opportunity of local students to receive territorial education.



Some scholars pointed out that reducing quotas for admitting non-local applicants would

impact the internationality of the University and thus the quality of education. Nonetheless,

the proportion of non-local students is not the only criteria in assessing the internationality of

the University. Other win-win policies, for example raising the number of exchange students,

increasing international platforms for intellectual exchange, lowering the threshold of

overseas internships, will be more effective and efficient.



Hong Kong is a knowledge-based economy. Our development is all depending on the future

generations. HKU should reduce the maximum intake of non-local applicants in order to

reallocate resources to better equip the local students, who hold the future of Hong Kong.

Representative of Engineering Society 工程學會代表 Cheung Kin Long 張健朗

Students in HKU, for both undergraduate and postgraduate students, can basically be

categorized into local students, who holds permanent living right or student visa in Hong

Kong, and non-local students, who holds Student Visa or Student Entry Permit for foreign

students and Mainland students respectively. The policy of admitting non-local students was

firstly carried out ten years ago aiming at enhancing the interaction between Hong Kong

students and foreign students and broadening the vision of education in the global extend.

However, it has been recently argued that too many non-local students were admitted every

year, especially for undergraduate programmes, and such circumstance resulted in

dissatisfaction to local students on the rationale that the intake of local students was limited

and even reduced. It is significantly being discussed among HKU students.



In my point of view, on educational grounds which I care most for an university, the

maximum intake of non-local students of 20% of total intake-quota is reasonably acceptable.



The primary purpose of in-taking non-local students to HKU is to provide more channels to

local students to communicate and interact with students who come from various countries

with different cultural backgrounds. It can actually be observed the effectiveness of the policy

on this purpose, through the performance and the quality of local undergraduate students.

On average students of HKU have always been well evaluated having great performance on

the communication skills and facilitating interpersonal relationship, as well as high level on

speaking English. It is also applicable to workplace. This may not be obvious to be seen that it

is resulted from the policy mentioned. But, the opportunities to get along with students who

are using other languages as their mother language will definitely help to improve students’

speaking in English. English is used as the official language for the education in HKU. The

only way to consolidate the abilities of students, especially for local students, is to provide

sufficient and various ways for them to use and apply the skills and knowledge gained in

classes, and which is clearly to be utilized in their daily life.



Admission of non-local applicants can directly achieve the purpose above. English is just an

example to be used to explain the importance of admitting non-local students. No matter for

other languages or students from other countries, even from Mainland China speaking

Mandarin, they all giving the same situation. But the argument, on the whole to say, is on the

amount of intake of non-local students.



The Government of HKSAR has launched the policy on the admission of non-local students

that up to 20% of the total intake-quota can be non-local students being admitted by each

institution. Looking back to recent years, 17.6% and 17.2% non-local applicants were

admitted to HKU last year, and 15.6% non-local applicants were admitted this year. Actually if

we can think from the prospect of education on bring the university to the global level, these

numbers are rational. Optimally one fifth of total undergraduate students being admitted as

non-local students equivalent we can meet a non-local students in every five students. Using

the mentioned purpose of the policy, in fact it is merely enough to create an international

atmosphere to HKU students as it is based on the opportunity for local and non-local students

to interact with each other.



The admission of non-local students actually does not affect the limit of the intake quota of

local students. Some local students may consider such policy ruin the benefits of themselves

since part of the proportion of intake-quota is distributed to non-local students and thus the

intake-quota and even resources for education to them. Certainly it brings international vision

to University students. Look from other angles, the policy carried out by the University is

acceptably to be considered as a booster to local students to study hard and to make

progress. The future of the education in Hong Kong should be looking forward to the space

to make advancement and develop to a higher level. Our vision, shall broaden to a wider

views.

Representative of Education Society 教育學會代表 NG Chi Hin 吳志騫

在全球化的世界中，高等教育的發展對香港的國際地位影響深遠。因此，社會各界一直關心政

府在高等教育上的資源投放。根據教資會資助院校的開支統計表，二零一一至二零一二年度的

總開支為 24,819 百萬元，佔本地生產總值百分之一點二六，於每位學生投放了 233,000 元。

然而，在這種情況的支助下，升學率仍不足百分之二十。我們不禁會問：問題的核是甚麼？



教資會資助院校主要統計數字顯示，二零一二至二零三年度的整體學生人數為 93,934 人，非本

地生的人數為 13,661 人，佔總人數百分之十四點五；學士學位課程的整體學生人數為 76,353

人，非本地生的人數為 8,399 人，佔百分之十一。更值得留意是，在香港大學的學士學位課程

下，非本地生的人數為2,224人，佔百分之十六，比二零一一至二零一二年度高了百分之二。



香港既邁向全球化，大學國際化是無可避免的現象，要讓學術交流的層次更廣闊，大學自然需

要吸納來自世界各地的人才，當中包括了學生和教職員。然而，本地大學亦有責任培育本地人

才。根據教資會的統計數字，於二零零八年至二零一三年間，非本地生佔整體學生人數的比率

為百分之十一點六、百分之十二點七、百分之十三點五、百分之十四點二及百分之十四點五，

可見非本地生的比率逐年遞增。然而，教資會對高等教育的開支（相對本地生產總值的比率）

卻由二零零八年的百分之一點三八跌至二零一二年的百分之一點二六，由此推論，政府對投放

於本地學生的資源減少了。在這個情況下，本地大學對於培育本地人才的責任方面，實有待重

新審視。



政府的資金來自市民，投放於教育上的資源也應以回饋市民為主，但是這並不代表大學多收本

地生會影響大學國際化，只要政府調整投放於高等教育的資源，保障本地生的升學率，大學國

際化與本地的專上教育機會其實可以達至雙軌並行。



為此，在能提升本地生升讀大專的機會下，即增加對高等教育的資源投放下，非本地生的限額

應可保持不變。

Representative of Dental Society 牙醫學會代表 Liu Chi Hang 廖智恒

It is no surprise that local students complain about the increasing intake of non-local students

into HKU in these few years. People are saying these non-locals are ‘consuming’ our

resources and would take their talents and knowledge away without contributing to Hong

Kong after they graduated. There are even perceptions that the University is intentionally

admitting certain amount of non-local students coming from different countries in order to

improve its international rankings.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the current intake percentage of non-local students is acceptable

as long as the University admits these students based on their talents and ability instead of

blindly craving for rankings.



What most local students complain about is that the non-locals students are competing for

the local students’ resources. It seems to us the numbers offers for local students decreases

as the non-local students ‘take our seats’. However, is this really the whole picture?

Officially, there are already fixed amounts of resources allocated to the local and non-local

students each year respectively. Thus, technically, the intake of local and non-local students is

isolated. Moreover, non-local students would not have the government subsidies on their

school fees. Hence the subsidy on local students would not be affected. Therefore, strictly

speaking, local and non-local students are not competing on the same resources.



However, some may argue that if the university decreases the intake of non-local students,

won’t there be more places for local students? In some extreme cases, people might even

suggest that a local university should only intake local students. Yet, do we truly understand

the meaning of having university institution? It is a place for exchanging but not spoon-
feeding knowledge, is a place for expanding our social network but not only studying.

University is a mini-society for us to experience and learn. In reality, especially in Hong Kong,

we always have to encounter people coming from all around the world. Universities offer us a

chance to work with, to exchange ideas and knowledge and to interact with international

students. As one of the best universities in Hong Kong, HKU allows us to have such valuable

experiences. What we gain is much more than knowledge but also a broader perspectives and

international experience when we graduate.



Undoubtedly, the universities offers for local students are not adequate at this moment.

Taking this year as an example, only about 18% of the secondary school students taking

HKDSE are able to get offers for the Government-funded Undergraduate Programmes.

However, what should be done is not cutting down the offers for non-local students but to

allocate more resources on undergraduate education! This has to be done by the Hong Kong

Government. This way, not only more local students can secure government-funded offers,

also the proportion of local and non-local students need not be changed. Hence, the benefits

of having international students would not be affected.


I think not a lot of people would disagree with the benefits of having non-local students. Most

importantly are why the University has to admit these students. They ought to admit these

students based on their talents, abilities, and the benefits they will bring to the school. I

believe this is the true meaning why international students really count when considering the

quality and the ranking of a university.

Representative of Business and Economics Association 經濟及工商管理學會代表 Ho Oi Mei 何藹薇

近年，大學學位競爭激烈，莘莘學子為了入讀大學，不惜十年寒窗，不過仍有大部學生未能考

入大學。香港大學收取非本地生佔整體收生人數，由零九的百分之十二點六，升至一三年的百

分之十五點六。由於大學學位供不應求，部份人認為，香港大學應調低非本地生限額，令更多

本地學生入讀大學。不過，本人對此觀點有所保留，原因基於以下要點:



首先，香港大學收取非本地生能夠提升其競爭力。香港大學素來以國際化自居，並於近年積極

吸納各地專才令其愈趨多元化。根據英國機構泰晤士高等教育的大學排名評分準則，國際化為

其中一項評分範疇，可見收取非本地生能夠提升大學在世界的排名及地位。故此，香港大學收

取非本地生，能夠讓其在國際保持地位。另外，此舉亦有助大學促進其與世界各地的學府的交

流。因此，調低非本地生對香港大學的優勢會有負面的影響，損害其競爭力。



再者，香港大學收取非本地生能為香港吸納人才。基於香港大學為世界知名的學府，不少非本

地生爭相報讀。以二零一三年為例，香港大學共收到一萬五千份非本地生入讀的申請。香港大

學培育本地優才外，還吸引了世界各地的優秀人才來港。這些非本地生在香港大學畢業後可在

香港工作一年，及後其公司可為他們申請繼續留港工作。作為香港首屈一指的學府，香港大學

吸納優才來港能提升人力資源的質素。



有人認為，香港每年超過一萬個考生，努力苦讀，卻未能入讀大學，故提出香港的大學應調低

非本地生的限額，以增加聯招學位。事實上，非本地生只佔整體收生其中一個部份，非聯招收

生亦是令聯招收生下跌的一個主要原因。以香港大學為例，非聯招的收生，約佔整體收生百分

之二十，更高於非本地生的人數。由此可見，針對聯招學位不足，大學應審慎考慮非聯招收

生，而非盲目減低非本地生的收生人數。香港大學減低非本地生的限額雖能增加學位，但卻令

其失去國際化的優勢。



以上可見，收取非本地生能維持香港大學在國際的地位，並為香港吸納優才，對其本地學生有

正面影響，因此，香港大學不應調低非本地生的限額。

Representative of Arts Association 文學院學生會代表 Ng Wai Ka 吳偉嘉

「香港大學收生應調低非本地生限額」這條辯題，就本科生而言，不應成立。

原因簡單，招收更多海外學生入讀，令港大成為國際一流的大學，在不影響本地學位供求

下，沒有理由反對。



影響本地生入讀機會？

本地學生，不論透過聯招與否，所獲大學學額皆受政府資助。港大每年最多可招收 20%的

非本地本科生，當中 4%為公帑學位，即同時與本地學生競爭，但影響極微。另外 16%則

為自資學額，部分受政府津貼，但不會影響本地生入讀機會。

這些學額應否獲政府資助是另一個議題，但無論如何，對本地生影響並不大。



國際化？內地化。

引入更多海外生旨在令港大成為更多元化的社區，原則上並非壞事，只是實行上有問題。

關鍵在於過高的內地生比例。港大教務長數年前曾表示，港大的目標是把非本地生的比例

增加至兩成，當中的四分三為內地生，其餘則為海外學生。今年收取非本地生佔總收生人

數 15.5%，當中有 10%來自內地，離目標不遠矣。校方收取非本地生旨在令港大國際化，

卻是背道而馳，變成內地化。



‘The maximum intake of non-local applicants to HKU should be reduced’ this motion

shall not stand in terms of undergraduates. There is no reason to object recruiting more

overseas students, provided that this does not come at the expense of local degrees offer.



Reducing local applicants’ admission chances?

Full-time local undergraduates degrees, applied through JUPAS or non-JUPAS, are all

government-funded. Each year, the University can admit non-local applicants up to 20%

of their total intake-quota, with 4% government-funded, which may affect the local

applicants a little. The remaining 16% is self-financing, partly funded by the government

yet does not affect the chances of admissions by local applicants.

Whether these degrees shall be funded is another issue, but either or not, it does not lead

to huge influence on local students.



Internationalization? Mainlandization

Creating a more diverse community through recruiting more overseas students is in

principle not a bad thing, but problematic practically. The key is the high ratio of

mainland students. The Registrar has claimed a few years ago that HKU’s goal is to

increase the ratio of non-local applicants to 20%, fourth-thirds of which are mainland

students. This year, non-local students take account for 15.5% of the total intake quota,

with 10 % coming from the mainland. The figure is very close to HKU’s goal. However,

what HKU does has defeated its purpose ─ this is Mainlandization, but not

Internationalization.

Representative of Architectural Society 建築學會代表 Wong Wai Lun 黃煒麟

The non-local students policy of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) encourages more non-
local students to be enrolled to the curriculum. Hence, local students can take advantage of

this opportunity to have cultural exchange and enhance their communication skills. In the

view of a local student, the maximum intake of non-local applicants to HKU should be

reduced.



Firstly, there is a great question that if the government should put so much “local”

resources in educating non-local students. The intake of non-local students has been

increasing annually in proportion to the total number of newly admitted students in HKU.

The percentage has been raised from 10 percent in 2006-2007 to 17 percent in 2012-

2013. The larger proportion means that less local students can enjoy the tertiary education

in HKU. However, as a local university which is partly financed by Hong Kong Government,

HKU should have the responsibility to educate local young people for the future

development of Hong Kong. It can be easily proved that those local graduates from HKU had

contributed much to society and this is supposed to be the first and foremost aim of HKU.

Putting resources on educating non-local students may bring benefits to local students but

the amount of resources involved may be too much now.



Secondly, the proportion of newly admitted a non-local student has increased while the

outcome of so-called cultural exchange is not so obvious. As the policy proposed, local

students should have chances to communicate with non-local students. However, the

increasing number of non-local students only seems to have little impact on the frequency

of cultural exchange. It is not about just increasing the number of students but providing

more chances for communication and exchange. To a certain extent, more non-local

students will even form more non-local communities which may possibly discourage local

students to approach those non-local students. HKU should put more resources on

providing channels for communication and exchange between local and non-local students

than maintaining, even increasing, the number of non-local students admitted. Also, the non-
local students from Mainland China may bring even less benefits to cultural exchange

because both local and non-local are Chinese.



Thirdly, the educational support to other countries should be lower due to recent rapid

development of some countries. One of the goals of non-local students policy of HKU is to

provide aid and support to the less prosperous countries. It is true in the early years that

nearby countries needed support from Hong Kong, yet it is doubtful that whether the

support from Hong Kong is essential to them. For example, China and India have their own

popular universities now and the educational support from Hong Kong seems redundant.

Why don’t we put our resources on educating local students?

Representative of Wei Lun Hall Students' Association 偉倫堂學生會代表 Chan Tsz Chun Rachel 陳芷臻

It has always been a controversy over the composition of HKU students. Most likely, people

have been arguing that the proportion of non-local students in HKU is too high. To a large

extent, I agree to the motion that “The maximum intake of non-local applicants to HKU

should be reduced”.



We had our first students from mainland and other parts of the world since the academic

year of 1998-1999. Generally speaking, the current government policy regulates all local

institutions that they can admit non-local students up to 20% of their total intake quota.

However, I find it non-acceptable for the University to use up to 17.6%(as in 3 year

curriculum in the academic year of 2012-2013), ahead of the fierce competition in local

undergraduate spaces. The number of non-local students admitted has been increasing

substantially, with average increase of 10%-20% per year. In fact, this situation has not

violated any rules or regulations, but the University has its responsibilities to take a look and

take care of the fierce competition in local applicants, before they admit such a number of

non-local students. For instance, based on the official statistics, each year on average only

have 20% local JUPAS and 10% non-JUPAS applicants successfully admitted into the

University. As a local DSE student admitted through JUPAS, I do find that the competition

fierce and stressful. To me, the University of Hong Kong is a local university, which tries to

bring international thoughts to inspire local students, instead of an international university

located in Hong Kong. Therefore, the University should put local students at first priority and

try to provide them with the best resources first.



Moreover, I think the University should always remember its goal: admit 50% of the non-local

UG students from Mainland China, and 50% from other parts of the world, and to have as

diverse a group of non-local students from as possible, whilst maintaining the highest

academic standards. I think it’s true that university should strive to provide different food of

thoughts, cultural interactions and to nurture us on multiple-perspective thinking. Based on

these circumstances, if the University wishes to nurture us through internationality, then it

has to balance the intake of non-local students, both from Mainland and the rest of the world.

To conclude, I think HKU has to lower the maximum intake of non-local applicants for the

benefits of its local students.

Representative of University Hall Students' Association 大學堂宿生會代表 Ho Chun Hin 何晉軒

本人支持校方研究降低非本地生人數比例，原因有二：



一．非本地生利處有誇大之嫌



根據官方文件透露，非本地生有利於香港作為國際都會的地位，為香港引入人才，並加強與鄰

近甚至國際地區教育團體合作，建立網絡並為其他大學提供協助；另外，非本地生亦能充實本

地學生的大學生活，提升本地生外語及與不同文化背景學生的溝通合作能力。



先談後者，本人絕對同意非本地生的存在有利香港大學學生的外語溝通能力。然而，非本地本

科生佔全體本科生近三成，若加上本地以非聯招方式進入大學的學生，將超過三份之一。參考

外國大學數字，非本地本科生一般佔總本科生人數一成至一成五，而相信此數字亦無損大學國

際地位，何故香港大學非本地生比例卻遠高於外地？加上，以上數字顯示的仍未計算從外國大

學以交流生計劃短時間留在香港的學生。這些學生正正能提供以上功能，而且數量較非聯招入

學更具彈性，即如此大量的非本地生並非必要。



再談前者，的確有不少非本地生會為本港經濟帶來貢獻，然而有資料顯示香港非本地生留港工

作人數不足三成，當中因素除了香港移民政策限制之外，許多非本地生視香港大學為一良好跳

板，多達四成非本地生只願留港一年，有利為日後升學作準備。香港人才流失問題嚴重，對比

起讓更多非本土生來港吸納資源，提升本地生比例增加可用的本地人才值得考慮。



二．本地人才供應短缺



基於本港產業飽和，以及內地對港開放程度增加，過去十年本地人才北上愈發常見。諷刺的

是，香港強調知識型經濟，以及開拓新產業以擴展行業光譜解決飽和問題，本地人才卻不斷流

失至鄰近地區以至發展中國家。無疑，能造就過際性的人才輸出足見香港教育成果，然而對香

港本土而言人才供應卻極為短缺。

要開拓新興產業及支持知識型經濟體系，具有領導才能、國際視野的人才絕不可少，大學正是

理想場所去培育下一代社會棟樑。然而一方面本地生比例比起其他國家已經不高，加上外流問

題嚴重，實不足以支持香港穩步發展。加上非本地生較少留港工作，實際上無法補充外流之人

才，因此提升本地生人數比例乃一上策。