If possible, please help check whether the passage is in proper english.

IT WAS six years ago, in 1998, that the SAR government implemented the policy of strictly requiring secondary schools to adopt either Chinese or English as their medium of instruction (MOI). A task force on secondary school MOI policy under the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) is reviewing the policy. It proposes that Chinese-medium secondary schools that meet certain requirements be allowed to offer English-medium teaching in the light of their students' aptitude.

It also proposes that, to ensure class quality, teachers of non-language subjects in English-medium schools should be barred from teaching in English unless their English proficiency is up to a certain standard. We are convinced that mother-tongue teaching is better for most students. Nevertheless, the government made such mistakes when it implemented the policy six years ago that the advantages of mother-tongue instruction have not been apparent.

Nevertheless, the policy instantly produced the labelling effect of extolling English-medium schools and deprecating Chinese-medium ones. The EMB's plan to enforce strictly three conditions for English-medium instruction is realistic. However, much must be done before parents can be disabused of their long-held conceptions about Chinese-medium and English-medium schools. To illustrate the virtues of mother-tongue instruction, we need practice and results.Since the government implemented its mother-tongue instruction policy six years ago, many students, not having to overcome the language barrier, have become much more interested to learn. Last year Chinese-medium secondary school students first sat for the Hong Kong Certification of Education Examination. While the pass rate of English dropped slightly, those of non-language subjects greatly improved. They did almost as well as English-medium school students.

That is cogent evidence of their greater eagerness to learn. However, there are not a few problems. For example, most parents prefer English-medium schools to Chinese-medium ones. This being the case, students admitted to Chinese-medium schools are on average of lower aptitude. The gap between Chinese-medium schools' students and English-medium schools' has widened. In fact, under the rigid policy, a Chinese-medium school may not increase the percentage of its English-medium classes even though its teachers can teach in English and their students can learn in that language.

It is a fact that, owing to the rigid MOI rules, some Chinese-medium school students have difficulty adapting to English-medium instruction in secondary four.

The policy has also caused English-medium schools not a few hidden problems. Some who teach in English-medium schools are not sufficiently proficient in English. That may hinder their students' progress. Some even teach in Cantonese. Theirs are not bona fide "English-medium" schools though they are called so. Furthermore, because of the rigid policy, students who have difficulty learning in English may not switch to Chinese-medium instruction. They may fall victim to English-medium instruction.
In the final analysis, the problems of the rigid MOI policy stem from the fact that it is unrealistic and departs from the principle of putting students' interests first and that of teaching students according to their aptitude. It would help restore things to order for the task force to lay down again the three conditions for English-medium instruction.
Under the proposed system, Chinese-medium schools may apply for assessment if they are confident that they can meet three requirements (that their students are able to learn in English; that their teachers are capable of teaching in English; and that they have sufficient support measures for English-medium teaching). If they meet those requirements, they may offer English-medium classes for students who are able to learn in English in the light of their needs. Furthermore, the authorities will re-assess English-medium schools against the three criteria to ensure the quality of their English-medium classes and to stamp out bogus "English-medium" schools.
The proposals would help end English-medium schools' "inherent" advantage and Chinese-medium schools' "inherent" disadvantage. It would also help set up a mechanism for mobility on the basis of capability. If Chinese-medium schools help improve their students' English proficiency, it will be easier to disabuse parents of their prejudices about Chinese-medium instruction. That would conduce to the development of mother-tongue teaching.