I laughed at a friend yesterday when she casually referred to the
Chinese national anthem as "the tune they play on TV just before the
6:30 news". Last night, the leading news item was the return home of the
Kai Fung 2. carrying our Diaoyu activists (passim). I joked that she was in need of a strong dose of National Education.
A writer in China Daily suggested:
Fifteen years after the handover, Chinese in Hong Kong still strongly self-identify
as being 'Hong Kong citizens' as opposed to 'Chinese citizens', so our
sense of "Chinese" identity could certainly be improved. But we are not
in a state of war, and stirring up anti-Japanese sentiment by taking
militant action over territorial claims and dredging up wartime
atrocities is not a way to achieve greater international understanding
or enduring patriotism. Harry satirises it well in his cartoon
published yesterday – it's true that the younger generation, being much
more inspired by international values and being global citizens, feels
little inclination to support flag-waving nationalist hyperbole of the
Diaoyu type.
Instead of being overly sensitive to bad news and silencing critics by force and intimidation, modern China needs to give its citizens reasons for being proud – reasons that demonstrate that it is progressive, enlightened and tolerant. Her modern-day achievements have been achieved with very high costs; her economic growth is costing us our clean water and clean air; her pursuit of Olympics medals have cost our athletes' souls and more. Her massive infrastructure projects have cost billions, uprooted millions and been declared 'potential ecological disasters'. There is no free education or free healthcare to speak of. Many HK Chinese feel frightened by, ashamed of or angry about examples of the systematic abuses of individual rights and freedoms in the PRC they come across every day. The staggering public response to the highly suspicious death of a previously unknown labour activist – endless press coverage, 100,000 signatures and 25,000 marchers – unmatched anywhere else in the world, is.the best recent example of this. People are also disconcerted by and disgusted at condoned official corruption, like the Sichuan construction scandal and toxic milk scandal. Hong Kongers' twin desire to retain the level of individual freedoms they enjoy (compared the average Chinese citizen) and for a better China makes them more willing to question those in power. I'm certain Mainlanders also have similar aspirations, but they are kept largely in the dark and barred from protesting or even petitioning for fear they may rise up.
The strong objection (90,000 on the streets) to introduction of NE is because parents' interests are already aligned with their core values, both of which they feel are being menaced. The Tsang administration screwed up implementation, stoking citizens' worst fears. No political system is perfect, but the people feel that to be told that China's one-party state is benevolent and may be better than US-style democracy is doublethink. So although the 'indoctrination' cat is already out of the proverbial bag, the HK government perceives this is what the boss ordered, so CY Leung has no option but to make a sow's purse out of the pig's ear. Current strategy appears to emphasise fine-tuning during the 3-year implementation window, and not whether it should be scrapped.
It has also been noted that our British colonial administrators removed Chinese history from schools' curricula – the colonial government's sensitivity to the neighbouring commie threat was well known, and the 1967 riots served as a reminder. It is possible that Hong Kong's leaders may have turned out to be more visionary and competent had we had debates on the Opium Wars during our lessons.
By definition, our children are now pawns of this NE game, and I fear that if the government holds firm, we will potentially have a war of attrition. We would also be in the ridiculous position of having national education but still no history classes. Our children would learn about China's territorial disputes and its 'peaceful liberation of Tibet' from a 'why we should love our country' perspective instead of a historical and humanistic one.
Faced with its first major challenge, the government will probably be concerned that any U-turn will render the administration impotent. But Beijing's agenda cannot be fudged, and it is on collision-course with Hong Kong parents. They must be thankful it's only the people that are opposed, and not some powerful bloc of tycoons. For years, the common perception is that government is colluding with big business; the people increasingly see our leaders not only failing to represent us, but also tending to abuse us in ways more and more like our mainland brethren. There is no amount of PR and political skill that remoulding implementation or setting up of an advisory committee (especially one with an obvious built-in pro-government majority) can placate the angry parents and students.
P.S. it turns out that my friend did know what the tune was, but merely misapplied the label...
Further reading
Ewing, Kent (7 August 2012) "Patriots and protests in Hong Kong"
A writer in China Daily suggested:
"Diaoyu Islands should be regarded as a teaching material for national education, given that cultivating the sense of national pride is of greatest significance for the program."
Instead of being overly sensitive to bad news and silencing critics by force and intimidation, modern China needs to give its citizens reasons for being proud – reasons that demonstrate that it is progressive, enlightened and tolerant. Her modern-day achievements have been achieved with very high costs; her economic growth is costing us our clean water and clean air; her pursuit of Olympics medals have cost our athletes' souls and more. Her massive infrastructure projects have cost billions, uprooted millions and been declared 'potential ecological disasters'. There is no free education or free healthcare to speak of. Many HK Chinese feel frightened by, ashamed of or angry about examples of the systematic abuses of individual rights and freedoms in the PRC they come across every day. The staggering public response to the highly suspicious death of a previously unknown labour activist – endless press coverage, 100,000 signatures and 25,000 marchers – unmatched anywhere else in the world, is.the best recent example of this. People are also disconcerted by and disgusted at condoned official corruption, like the Sichuan construction scandal and toxic milk scandal. Hong Kongers' twin desire to retain the level of individual freedoms they enjoy (compared the average Chinese citizen) and for a better China makes them more willing to question those in power. I'm certain Mainlanders also have similar aspirations, but they are kept largely in the dark and barred from protesting or even petitioning for fear they may rise up.
The strong objection (90,000 on the streets) to introduction of NE is because parents' interests are already aligned with their core values, both of which they feel are being menaced. The Tsang administration screwed up implementation, stoking citizens' worst fears. No political system is perfect, but the people feel that to be told that China's one-party state is benevolent and may be better than US-style democracy is doublethink. So although the 'indoctrination' cat is already out of the proverbial bag, the HK government perceives this is what the boss ordered, so CY Leung has no option but to make a sow's purse out of the pig's ear. Current strategy appears to emphasise fine-tuning during the 3-year implementation window, and not whether it should be scrapped.
It has also been noted that our British colonial administrators removed Chinese history from schools' curricula – the colonial government's sensitivity to the neighbouring commie threat was well known, and the 1967 riots served as a reminder. It is possible that Hong Kong's leaders may have turned out to be more visionary and competent had we had debates on the Opium Wars during our lessons.
By definition, our children are now pawns of this NE game, and I fear that if the government holds firm, we will potentially have a war of attrition. We would also be in the ridiculous position of having national education but still no history classes. Our children would learn about China's territorial disputes and its 'peaceful liberation of Tibet' from a 'why we should love our country' perspective instead of a historical and humanistic one.
Faced with its first major challenge, the government will probably be concerned that any U-turn will render the administration impotent. But Beijing's agenda cannot be fudged, and it is on collision-course with Hong Kong parents. They must be thankful it's only the people that are opposed, and not some powerful bloc of tycoons. For years, the common perception is that government is colluding with big business; the people increasingly see our leaders not only failing to represent us, but also tending to abuse us in ways more and more like our mainland brethren. There is no amount of PR and political skill that remoulding implementation or setting up of an advisory committee (especially one with an obvious built-in pro-government majority) can placate the angry parents and students.
P.S. it turns out that my friend did know what the tune was, but merely misapplied the label...
Further reading
Ewing, Kent (7 August 2012) "Patriots and protests in Hong Kong"