Forget public sentiment that 'expressive freedom' has been threatened by the SAR government in the debates over censorship, the limited public participation in decision-making matters in politics, and the control over the creative arts. The SAR government has decided to go further and deal with the origins of such discontent; by changing the way people think. There has been a long tradition of this since the colonial days; for example the introduction of a colonial language subvertly indoctrinated the population with associations of class stratification...
 |
| Some of these pieces, just doesn't fit. Say 'no' to National Education in Hong Kong. (The embellishments are a combination of things on my own school crests...) |
More specifically, changing the way youths think through the education system, with the introduction of National Education (國民教育. 'National Education' sounds innocuous, and I much prefer the wikipedia reference of 'Patriotic Education', where the political elements are highlighted.) It sounds reasonable on paper, seemingly based on the premise of teaching students what it means to be a citizen of the locality and of the nation. Other countries have similar types of education; imbuing students with national history, politics, and a sense of obligation to the state. Actually, I'm not sure there is a country where National Education has not been contested or problematized. European nations constantly refer to the world wars, recalling history and to foster national solidarity (though this is not always well received, and this idea of introducing patriotic notions to history has been contested. I think a few years ago, attempts to teach 'Britishness' in U.K. schools was slammed by teachers as being too exclusionary ) Some countries such as the U.S. have courted controversy by introducing the pledge of allegiance in schools, which conversely fostered a series of criticisms and student denouncement, especially at the university level. Not to mention the sensitive matter of how WWII is addressed in Japan, where there are allegations of textbook manipulation to play down the killings in China. And China has infamously omitted 4 June and policy failings of the Communist Party in their school material. The acceptability of National Education seems to depend on whether the 'right' sort of history-- 'right' as being defined by politicians, society, or the global community-- is being taught...
Why is there such resistance to National Education in Hong Kong?
Starting with the obvious; the concept of 'nation' in Hong Kong is complicated, which makes National Education a problematic existence in the city. The city went from being a colony to a SAR after the handover in 1997; but Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong identity, arguably developed in absence of any national narrative throughout history. This was part of the colonial mode of governance; the British distanced themselves in fear of receiving a huge migrant influx to the U.K., thus refraining from fully claiming the Hong Kong population as 'colonial subjects' (the right of abode for the U.K. were given to a limited portion of the population, mostly those in the professional classes or are civil servants.) Yet ties with China were restricted by the colonial authorities over anxieties that the socio-political turmoil that took place in the mainland during the 1940s-1970s would trickle into the city and cause instability. This has manifested itself in the education system, where ordinances were established to prohibit political propaganda from entering the teaching materials, and threatened students with political affiliations with expulsion. Teaching 'Chinese history' became a very sensitive matter, with committees choosing what to convey to the students (the history that did end up being taught was very removed from current happenings), and decontextualizing its presentation so that Hong Kong students were not able to identity with experiences north of the border. Not to mention how China had relatively inaccessible borders for part of the 20th century... (this is a crude nutshell of Hong Kong history here, but the development of Hong Kong history and identity are such vast topics normally covered by a series of academic papers.) To suddenly implement a National Education in a city that never fit into any national context, especially with a nation that experienced a completely different history of socio-economic and political development from Hong Kong, would be most jarring.
Even without considering the historical context, there is issue with the proposed teaching material, which does not teach history, but twists it. History lessons contains degrees of propaganda (history class 101 questions include: who writes history? What are their backgrounds, and their motivations for writing it? What is is being taught for in the contemporary context, and for what purpose?) but the Hong Kong National Education decided that subtlety is overrated. There are blatant messages advocating for one-party rule in China (specifically Communist rule), skewed reinterpretations of past events (the construction process of the Three Gorges Dam), and statements that fit comfortably within any propaganda campaign. Details and examples of National Education material has been circulating on Facebook, and on the Scholarism (學民思潮) web page. It would be naive to believe that we aren't being fed skewed information on a daily basis through other subliminal outlets, but I suppose the issue is how obviously it is done in this context...
With Hong Kong law stipulating a mandatory nine years of education for all youths, it is fair to say that the degree of influence education has on the developing adolescent mindset is quite substantial. And to have National Education, and such a warped version at that, permeate into the classrooms will surely have a detrimental effect on the way future youths are able to understand and think about socio-political matters. This National Education debacle can be momentarily avoided by studying in private schools (such as the English School Foundation chain) and going abroad, but this is not a financially viable option for the majority of the Hong Kong population. And why should students have to 'escape' from the education system, instead of being able to dictate the direction it takes?
But perhaps a greater question is why we leave the duty of educating the future generations to a dissatisfactory schooling system, run by a government that refuses to heed the concerns of students and parents. To what extent should we leave the socialisation of youths to the education system in the first place? Before Occupy Central was embroiled in the lawsuit threatening to remove them from HSBC, they had the aptly-named 'Free School', advocating for the free flow of knowledge. It was a nascent alternative to the mode of knowledge transmission in the classroom; people who wished to teach taught, people who wished to learn did so. There were no enrolment forms, no fees to be paid, no obligation to adhere with a regimented schedule. More importantly, there was an important interaction that takes place during Free School lessons, with a balanced and reciprocal power-dynamic between the teacher and student. Perhaps this is the crux of the issue; I'm not saying that the population should completely break away from the mainstream education system, but a structural change is needed where students should be recognised as active entities who have just as much right to engage in educational decision-making processes as the authorities. They're not pawns used by political parties (ahem, ATV commentary, that was shoddy journalism!), they are capable of thinking and acting on their own accord...
....that is just my two cents. Nonetheless, I'm glad the students in Hong Kong have mobilised to protest against National Education, even if the form this mobilisation manifested in has been contested.
I'm writing this post knowingly bypassing discussions about the implications having a group such as Scholarism in the political scene. There has been praise for this group of secondary-school students mobilising themselves into an organised, cohesive unit to actualise their ideals and goals. Some have developed a sense of optimism, thinking that the future of a democratic Hong Kong is increasingly secured with such youths in the city. On the flip side, there are criticisms that Scholarism is perpetuating existing bureaucratic structures, and accusations have been made that their movement is not truly democratic in that the prominent figureheads muffle the voices of others. Arguably, Scholarism is just a younger version of the problematic formal political groups we see in the city today, and can potentially replicate the same problems in the future. Not to be an apologist for the group, but for a bunch of secondary school students, many of whom are probably involved in politics for the first time in their lives through these protests, they may have had to resort to replicating existing organisational structures because of limited exposure to experience and knowledge on 'alternative' politics. But that sounds like, and probably is (why avoid the truth?), an excuse.
Perhaps it is more valid to ask what the motivations of Scholarism are; I'm not entirely sure their goal was to create an 'alternative' way of doing things, but to play within the system to change the system. Can we fault them for going this route, one that seems to ensure the greatest level of success? Was their goal even to have an overhaul of the system, or to make the existing system listen to their views? And if they feel as though what they are doing has meaning, then who are we to denounce their efforts? That said, my feelings towards Scholarism are ambivalent. Like all nascent movements, feelings of optimism run strong at first, gradually dissipating into a disappointing debacle of personality differences, self-interest, and struggles for control (like the Democratic Party so far.) I'm not certain what to expect, but can only hope for things to evolve differently...
-----------------------------------------------------
Update (10 September 2012): During the weekend, the government has agreed to leave the choice of National Education to individual schools, instead of making it an mandatory element in the curriculum. This is 'progress' for Scholarism, indicating that the government has recognised them as a challenge to their authority, a legitimate political force. However, this cession of National Education responsibility to individual schools doesn't mean that the current 'brainwashing' threat is over. In fact, it might not even mean much in deterring National Education, given how many pro-government and pro-Beijing figures have taken positions of power in school administrations and other non-student associations. There will probably be series of small-scale protests over the decisions of some schools towards National Education, but it'll appear as a scattered effort, without the impact of the protests we see now. Hopefully the anti-National Education momentum will carry through, whether it is through Scholarism or not.
I'm writing this post knowingly bypassing discussions about the implications having a group such as Scholarism in the political scene. There has been praise for this group of secondary-school students mobilising themselves into an organised, cohesive unit to actualise their ideals and goals. Some have developed a sense of optimism, thinking that the future of a democratic Hong Kong is increasingly secured with such youths in the city. On the flip side, there are criticisms that Scholarism is perpetuating existing bureaucratic structures, and accusations have been made that their movement is not truly democratic in that the prominent figureheads muffle the voices of others. Arguably, Scholarism is just a younger version of the problematic formal political groups we see in the city today, and can potentially replicate the same problems in the future. Not to be an apologist for the group, but for a bunch of secondary school students, many of whom are probably involved in politics for the first time in their lives through these protests, they may have had to resort to replicating existing organisational structures because of limited exposure to experience and knowledge on 'alternative' politics. But that sounds like, and probably is (why avoid the truth?), an excuse.
Perhaps it is more valid to ask what the motivations of Scholarism are; I'm not entirely sure their goal was to create an 'alternative' way of doing things, but to play within the system to change the system. Can we fault them for going this route, one that seems to ensure the greatest level of success? Was their goal even to have an overhaul of the system, or to make the existing system listen to their views? And if they feel as though what they are doing has meaning, then who are we to denounce their efforts? That said, my feelings towards Scholarism are ambivalent. Like all nascent movements, feelings of optimism run strong at first, gradually dissipating into a disappointing debacle of personality differences, self-interest, and struggles for control (like the Democratic Party so far.) I'm not certain what to expect, but can only hope for things to evolve differently...
-----------------------------------------------------
Update (10 September 2012): During the weekend, the government has agreed to leave the choice of National Education to individual schools, instead of making it an mandatory element in the curriculum. This is 'progress' for Scholarism, indicating that the government has recognised them as a challenge to their authority, a legitimate political force. However, this cession of National Education responsibility to individual schools doesn't mean that the current 'brainwashing' threat is over. In fact, it might not even mean much in deterring National Education, given how many pro-government and pro-Beijing figures have taken positions of power in school administrations and other non-student associations. There will probably be series of small-scale protests over the decisions of some schools towards National Education, but it'll appear as a scattered effort, without the impact of the protests we see now. Hopefully the anti-National Education momentum will carry through, whether it is through Scholarism or not.
