I am seriously concerned about the future of Hong Kong. Well, maybe that’s not the best way to put it. Hong Kong will continue to exist for decades and perhaps centuries to come. But the end of Hong Kong as we know it may be closer than we can accept. I said it back in 1997 when the British handed Hong Kong back to China – China will not change things over night, there will not be tanks rolling down Nathan Road on July 1st (there were people who seriously believed this would happen), the changes will be slower and more insidious.
The pollution, the economic disparity, the way the region is managed under the vise-like grip of a small group of multi-billionaires, the way China is turning Hong Kong into a shopping mall and toilet for rich mainlanders – I’m rarely happy about that but I’ve grown accustomed to it and decided that no place is perfect, every place has its own set of compromises, you choose the ones you can live with and I’ve chosen mine. I may not be the prognosticator that Hemlock is but this weekend I feel as if Hong Kong is at a tipping point.
In my mind, this started a few years back with the mess over Article 23. The Basic Law required Hong Kong to enact a law against sedition and the attempt to put such a law in place was so poorly handled that record numbers of people swarmed into the streets in protest, the bill was withdrawn and eventually the first chief executive of Hong Kong, Tung Chee-Hwa, was so unpopular that he was forced to step down and we were stuck with the miserable Donald Tsang as punishment.
Protests were always a part of Hong Kong life and if anything, since then, they’ve become bigger, especially when Hong Kong people feel that their freedoms are under attack.
Now, Hong Kong faces its most serious challenge since Article 23, one that’s called MNE – Mandatory National Education. The government has decided that schools need to teach courses in “modern Chinese history. Some schools have started introducing it this year, all schools must have it by 2015. The curriculum praises the Communist Party and is basically seen by many as an attempt to brainwash children into loving the “motherland”.
As most of you know, I don’t have kids. So why should I care what is taught to kids in Hong Kong’s schools? Well, what I worry about is what’s next. One day it’s an anti-sedition law, the next day a propaganda-heavy curriculum, what’s next? What other plans does China have up its metaphorical sleeve? Censorship of the internet? Restrictions on public gatherings? If this thing goes through, anything is possible.
But what scares me is that if this thing does not go through, again, anything is possible. I worry that China might feel that it has been painted into a corner, that its back is up against a wall, that it can’t back down to the protesters a second time because that will confirm the precedent and that things will move beyond their control.
Protests have ensued. Our new fearless leader, the (of course) very pro-Beijing C.Y. Leung, said this week that he is open to discussion and debate on the subject as long as it is accepted that this is going to happen and is not going to be withdrawn. To my mind this is yet another example of what you get when you have a non-elected government that is not beholden to the people.
The protests have been going on all week and on Friday night (tonight) it’s estimated that there were 150,000 protesters camped outside of the new government headquarters in Tamar. Many of these protesters are expected to stay through the night and possibly longer.
Here’s a photo of the scene tonight, found at the Joyceyland blog. (Joyce Lau is a reporter for the NY Times and the IHT.)
To top this off, we are just hours away from Sunday’s territory-wide elections for Legislative Council. Normally Hong Kong’s pro-democracy parties are poorly organized and ineffectual and barely able to hold onto about a third of the elected seats in LegCo. This year, one nimrod from one of the parties suggested that people should cast blank votes – a measure that would guarantee greater success for the pro-Beijing parties (and yes, we do have them here, Buddha only knows why).
So. We have a China that is terrified of Hong Kong becoming a hothouse of sedition and insurrection. We have a newly appointed and already widely hated Chief Executive just two months into the job trying to prove himself to his bosses.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the situation is somehow defused and that there is a mutually acceptable resolution and life goes back to normal, whatever normal passes for these days. But tonight I’m just not seeing a happy ending here.
While commenting about what is or is not in the MNE – a number of things – firstly, MNE stands for Moral and National Education, not Mandatory, secondly, it would benefit the debate that all who oppose it actually read the contents of the Governments guidelines to the schools: http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=9051&langno=1
If you read through the 200 page guidelines, you will find no praising of the Communist party, or really any major discussion of modern Chinese history. As part of the National education, one is taught how to respect the flag, and also taught about the various institutions of Government, however also taught to think for oneself independently, there is no brainwash here.
However, there was a “China Model National Conditions Training Model” published by a “National Education Services Center” with some Government grants, which does contain objectionable material, however government funding does not necessarily mean that it is the endorsed view of the Government, schools are free to design their curriculum around the EDB guidelines.
Joseph, I stand corrected on the name of the program. As for the rest, thanks for representing the government line on this policy and presenting it here. One question: how come no one believes it?
So have you read the 200 pg document or not?
Joseph, the actual guide is here:
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_2428/MNE%20Guide%20%28ENG%29%20Final%2020120619.pdf
In case you missed the relevant bits, starting from page 127 are a list of the learning objectives for Primary 1-3 (that’s right, 6-8 years old):
- Learn about the country’s contemporary development, and develop a sense of self-reflection and national identity
Do I have to spell out what “contemporary development” means to the Communist Party?
Also:
- Foster a sense of belonging towards one’s country, ancestral home and place of residence through tracing traditional Chinese customs and one’s/peers’ native and ancestral home
Does this really need to be taught at school? Apart from Han Chinese, we have people of other cultures calling Hong Kong their home.
Now look at how these are to be taught, on page 149:
- Teachers should develop students’ affection for their country… Human emotion should be emphasised to enliven learning… teachers should impassion their students if their teaching is to make any impact.
Please, stop insulting us by claiming we haven’t read through the actual Guide and are merely going by the outrageous China Model booklet.
Oh I missed my favourite, on page 147 (sorry Spike, allow me to quote this in full):
—–
4. Principles in the discussion of controversial issues
To ensure smooth discussions of controversial issues and to avoid conflicts of opinions and disputes, it is advisable to formulate certain principles such as:
- Be patient in discussions and put aside one’s bias before the dialogue begins. Do not jump to a judgement too soon.
- Try to concentrate and listen. Even when students may disagree, they should respect others who all have the right to speak. The discussion is aimed at exchanging opinions. They should learn together, rather than compete with one another. They should respect different views.
- Be ready to accept the views of the others. Do not be stubborn when others produce strong evidence and arguments to support their stance. Students should have the courage to revise their stances. They can hardly explore the truth if they only adhere to their own stance and give no regard to the rights and wrongs of their arguments.
- Be a fair-minded listener. Persons of different opinions should be given equal opportunities to voice their opinions. Students should not dominate all the speech. Each member of the class, like every stakeholder in society, has equal rights and freedom of speech, and mutual respect should be maintained.
- Respond to the other party calmly and constructively and avoid disputes.
—–
Yes, students are taught to avoid conflicts and disputes rather than facing up to them. Really fosters critical thinking, yeah?
A bit of a facetious answer to that would be – why does the Tea Party believe what they believe???
But seriously, Hong Kong is in a bad way, it is undeniable that Hong Kong is heading in a bad direction, and to be honest, I think this ship is a difficult one to right, however, my belief is that the real evil in Hong Kong is not necessarily the government, but the vested interests of the Real Estate tycoons. Traditionally, the Chinese Communist government has relied on the support of the Real Estate tycoons in Hong Kong for stability, but this time round, the tycoons “chosen one”, Henry Tang, really f*cked up the election, so CY Leung was chosen – but in a way that has caused most Hong Kong-ers to completely lose trust in the system. In his last ditch attempts to save his candidacy, Henry Tang said some – so far still unproven – things which touched on some latent beliefs about CY and instilled a certain fear of him in a large number of the Hong Kong populace.
That is what is scary about the MNE protests – it is no longer driven by reason, it is driven by fear, fear about a slow erosion of rights – even when in this case, no erosion of rights has occurred.
There is a deep dissatisfaction in Hong Kong about our situation, the inequality here is rising in a precipitous manner. The importance of Hong Kong in greater China and in the world is dropping by the minute. The locals need someone to blame. The government is the easiest to blame, but apart from the government, there’s the mainland chinese visitors, mainland chinese moms, even Dolce and Gabbana.
However in the end, the major problem with Hong Kong is that the Real Estate developers are too powerful, however you will never see this message in the media, or a concerted effort in the media to write against the developers, as the media depends on real estate advertising, hell SCMP is owned by a real estate developer (Kerry Group).
I came to HK 6 years ago, my last posting was in Sgp. When I first saw protests on the streets of HK, I was shocked that they were even allowed as they would not have been possible where I was posted previously. Six years later, I am used to seeing (and accepting) protests for all causes, however mundane they are. What surprises me even more is some very “normal and common” people in my office join in the protests. not worrying about any possible repercussions. This speaks volume about how secure people in HK feel about their government and I think it is a very positive sign, although I still am in awe how easily people take to the street and may be too easily… As to National Education, I do not know enough to comment on it although civic education is present in every country. When I was a toddler, my placement was a map of USA with the names of the 50 states on it.. although I think that few people in HK would ever buy a placement with names of the Chinese provinces on it… Yet people in HK (may be many of the protesters) would cheer mightily hard for the Chinese Olympians which are afterall, a product of the communist party.. I cant reconcile it.
PLACEMAT was what I meant not placement
Because the government screws up every project it tries to implement & patently fails to respect the views and the wishes of the people it is meant to serve.
Increasing the education ‘about China’, history, geography, institutions, challenges, plans – could have been carried out in normal lessons with nothing more emotive than the usual school debates about democracy etc.
But somewhere in govt for some reason a bunch of tactless self interested arse- lickers of Beijing has to give it the full on divisive, propaganda sounding ‘Moral AND National blah blah blah’ title – thus stirring up every possible fear in Hong Kongers minds that the CP wants to make HK just like China.
Well – HK’ers don’t want to be Just Like China; FFS many of them are descended from people who wanted to get away from the CP, warlords, poverty etc. And quite clearly from the number of Mainlanders buying up property / boltholes here and wanting HK education (where I live there are many Mainland students at the PolyU), health service etc – it’s clear the Mainlanders want what HK has too.
You don’t dictate loyalty, respect of love for ‘the country’ – it has to be earned – the fiasco of the MNE is yet another example of why the govt simply doesn’t get it.
@space hunt; thanks for posting the offending parts. I find that very little is actually mentioned about the actual issue, and it seems like more fear mongering by the anti-govt parties, which to be honest are a bit embarrassing at times.
I am neither for or against the text that has been quoted above. With an non partision view point, isn’t the same taught in social studies in most western countries? Eg national pride, freedom of speech?
It would be more damning if the text books were used to show removal of key events such as T.Square. Have they released these materials yet?
Cheers
Hear hear re what mumphLT wrote.
Remember a time not so long ago when Hong Kong had hoped that it would change (the rest of) China? Alas, it looks now like it’s the other way around — though Hong Kong is putting up a (non-violent) fight to ensure that it does not become just another Chinese city… and an uninfluential one at that.
It strikes me as a bit disingenuous to compare the protesters in HK to the Tea Party in the US. Or was the point that the protesters here are backed by a group of billionaires primarily intent on maintaining their fortunes and their control?
Now one might argue that teaching the history of China actually would instill very little national pride. 5,000 years of despots and tyrants, ruthlessly oppressing the masses? Or just the past 60 years – 30 million people dead under Mao, collapsing schools, poison in milk, the army murdering students for wanting a say in how the country they live in is run, corruption reaching up to the highest levels of government. The Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of speech yet those who choose to exercise this right are imprisoned or killed. Is it any wonder that people who have access to information don’t believe what the government tells them? Which China are they supposed to love? The one that oppresses people like Ai Weiwei and Wang Xiaoning? The China that employs millions to censor the internet? The China that imprisons people who speak out against corruption?
But there’s no point in arguing over the internet. No one ever convinces anyone else to change their stance. It is merely people shouting at each other. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, and never the twain shall meet.
I rather thought that the point of what I wrote was “What’s Next?” – that was the title, after all. Whether you believe the protesters have the moral high ground or have been brainwashed is almost beside the point. The point is that they are there and that they are apparently not going to back down. I don’t expect the Chinese government to back down either. So what’s next? Will the government back down a second time, accept Hong Kong as ungovernable by their morally corrupt standards, and let us go on with our happy lives, and perhaps the seeds of our freedom will cross the “border” and spread throughout China? Will the government send police and soldiers into the square to clear it by any means necessary? Will the entire thing merely evaporate and be a memory in a few months time?
How do you think this will play out? Do you see any scenario with a happy ending?
And to follow up on @joe comment, the second passage posted by @space, isn’t what is posted basically a prerequisite for a rational discussion? Hear other viewpoints, evaluate, possibly change one’s own, it does not say there not to voice one’s own view, just to ensure that others are listened to and not to present things in an antagonistic way, which is what the students and other protestors are doing now . . ?
That @space would post that second extract in a derogatory way says a lot about how the protestors think. To listen to other arguments is a weakness . . .
@Spike – I do agree with you, there is no point arguing over the internet . . and I do apologize for hijacking your blog here.
As to what’s next, pundits believe that it is very possible, after the election tomorrow, the MNE subject will be cancelled by the government as members of the government have already hinted that that is the bottom line. However cancellation at this point may hurt the pro-government parties in the Legco election and give additional motivation to the anti-government parties. So hopefully, it will all blow over.
As to my comparison of the protestors with the Tea Party – I just do not see that the protests are driven by rational thought anymore, and is mostly based on emotion and fear, their arguments are rooted in it, which is similar to the Tea Party propaganda, however, I did mean the comparison a bit tongue-in-cheek.
@Spike, depends on what your definition of happy ending is. To me, happy ending is the total eradication of mainland influence from Hong Kong, whether by force or by other means. To achieve this though, the next steps will be very painful indeed, as we are up against an entire state, and an amoral one at that.
Oh spacehunt, I admire your stance but I don’t believe it is achievable. At any rate, from your experience with project management, you already know that the “deliver early, deliver often” approach is more successful than the big bang. Small steps and deliverables moving towards a final goal.
@Joseph, what’s wrong (and frankly dangerous) with the second passage I quoted is it encourages binary thinking, that there is one “truth”, and “students should have the courage to revise their stances”; in other words, no “agree to disagree”.
@Spike, big bang? No I’m not saying that. Small steps and deliverables moving towards a final goal — sure, that’s what the “opposition” has been doing for the last 20-30 years, and it’s tiring already to stay vigilant, let alone moving the other way.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” — Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884), abolitionist, orator and columnist for The Liberator, in a speech before the Massachusetts Antislavery Society in 1852.
Thanks Spike, that quote was what I was thinking of. We have to believe our goal is just and right and achievable, otherwise we have already lost.
Have they published the actual recommended or prescribed text books yet?
In the end, I sense these objections are as much to do with hk becoming China’s bitch, as the curriculum itself.
Hk has lost its movie making, manufacturing, and innovation to become a replacable financial centre. Even in tourism, arts and culture Singapore beat us with similar attractions and Formula1. I think hk’ers should be angry partially at themselves for not pushing these agendas just as hard.
Hk, just like Macau i.e. too dependant on China, and can’t accept reality.
Cheers