11 minute read
Modern China – The Only Module Left?
AN INTRODUCTION TO HONG KONG’S JOURNEY FROM LIBERAL STUDIES TO MORAL AND NATIONAL EDUCATION MODERN CHINA – THE ONLY MODULE LEFT?
Advertisement
Introduction – The 729 Protest
“NO BRAINWASHING!” “NO BRAINWASHING!” “SAY NO TO CHINESE PROPAGANDA!” “SAY NO TO CHINESE PROPAGANDA!” …… The crowd chanted again and again, with their voices heard in every corner of Hong Kong Island. It was 3pm on Sunday, 29th July 2012¹, over 90 thousand protesters marched from Victoria Park to the Central Government Offices, all with the same, one demand: the government’s immediate withdrawal of the moral and national education proposal. ‘Moral and national education’, what even is it? How is it ‘brainwashing’? What does it have to do with liberal studies? (Heck, what does it have to do with me?) This is not a history lesson, it will all make sense soon, but bear with me for a second here as we travel back to 2012 together, that time when freedom and democracy were still words of meaning.
The Proposal
Moral and National Education (MNE) was a school curriculum proposed by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong in 2012. According to the revised MNE Curriculum Guide published in June 2012, the subject aims to help students develop moral qualities, a positive and optimistic attitude, selfrecognition, ability to judge in a caring and reasonable manner, and recognition of identity; with additional guidance for students to practice these in their daily lives, making it a habit with positive impact on our society. The subject also claims to enhance students’ commitments and contributions to analyze and judge personal, family, social, national and global issues². Boring background information aside, MNE does sound like a meaningful subject, surely no one can disagree with such a phenomenal proposal, right? Still not convinced? Under the “national issues” section, it was even explicitly mentioned that with the help of MNE, students would learn to “think critically and independently”, the exact opposite of the so-called “brainwashing”!
The Controversy
Of course, the 729 protest did not happen without a reason, and it definitely didn’t take long for people to find out the government’s true intentions behind this seemingly glamorous proposal. Soon after the proposal, the National Education Services Centre published the “China Model National Conditions Teaching Manual”, a government funded guide for teachers teaching MNE’s “national issues” aspect, the coincidentally same chapter as mentioned above. Surprising many at that time, it was found to be severely biased towards the Communist Party of China. For example, the CCP was crowned an “advanced, selfless and united ruling group” (進步、無私與團結), while denouncing Democratic and Republican Parties of the US as “fierce inter-party rivalry, making the people suffer” (政黨 惡斗，人民當災)³. Furthermore, incidents such as the June 4th Tiananmen Massacre, the Cultural Revolution, human rights issues in Mainland China were all nowhere to be seen in the manual.
After the Protest
And so be it, thousands of students, parents, teachers, even doctors and artists all took the streets on 29th July 2012, demanding the government to withdraw the MNE Proposal at once. The proposal, following more mass protests, some with over 100 thousand participants, was eventually withdrawn. The citizens of Hong Kong have won the battle…… or have they? In 2017, Kevin Yeung Yunhung, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Education, ‘clarified’ to the public that MNE “has not been scrapped completely”, and that teaching on the topic was continuing in the form of different subjects and activities in schools⁴. For example, the inclusion of a new
Image source: 眾新聞
education at the junior secondary level, and plans to make Chinese history a compulsory subject at senior secondary level5 . Now, fast forward to 2020, just last month, the Education Bureau announced the implementation of a whole list of amendments on Liberal Studies, including, but not limited to, changing the subject’s name (new name to be decided), requiring all Liberal Studies textbooks to be approved by the government before publishing, and changing its original Independent Enquiry Study (IES), a compulsory student essay/project, to governmentorganized field trips to Mainland China; all these decided without consulting a single teacher or student.
Liberal Studies
Liberal Studies (LS) is a compulsory subject in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE), all Hong Kong students under the HKDSE curriculum (accounting for approximately 93% of all Hong Kong secondary 6 students in 202067) must pass this subject for a chance to be admitted to any of the local universities. The drastic amendments of the to-be-renamed Liberal Studies was clearly one of the crucial, and perhaps final steps in the government’s implementation of the MNE; with the government controlling the publication of all related textbooks, and sending all students to mainland China for what they call “field trips”, the only thing left is renaming the subject to “Moral and National Education” and the CCP’s marvelous 8-year-plan is completed. The change might appear sudden and out of nowhere, but this is barely close to the truth. Throughout the years, government funded publishers such as the Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company have been censoring their LS textbooks bit by bit: first deleting case studies about the Cultural Revolution, then whole sections on the June 4th Tiananmen Massacre, and most recently, scrubbing out content on universal suffrage, civil disobedience and our mostfamiliar separation of powers8 . We were all simply too busy to notice all these minor changes, until now when it’s already too late.
So……what?
What does all of this have to do with me? It is a very reasonable question to ask. With separation of powers fallen as discussed in one of our previous articles9, Asia’s World City is turning into another Chinese province, just like Tibet all over again, and now by destroying LS and paving its way to becoming the new MNE, our children are about to be brainwashed; they will sing the national anthem with overwhelming tears of joy, and serve the Communist Party with pride and honour, but what does this have to do with you? Take a look at China’s unignorable influence in current international politics, and might I remind you, the CCP has plans such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the China 2025 Plan to dominate the global economy even further. Details of the “China Threat Theory” should perhaps be left for future articles, but it’s undoubtedly a simple matter of time before
China skyrockets into a new, world-leading superpower, if not already one. “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” While some of you are still claiming that politics are “none of your business”, China’s control over the World Health Organization has successfully blocked the world from entering its borders for in-depth investigations on COVID-1910; like a puppeteer manipulating his puppet, China, the friend of all developing countries, manipulate international organizations and even the International Court of Justice to cover up its conspicuous violations on international laws and basic human rights matters11. This is a test. Hong Kong, a crucial gearwheel of the global financial market China, is a testing ground for the CCP; how the international community reacts to Hong Kong will directly affect how well the authoritarian nation-state plays by international rules in the future. The CCP has ambitious plans to take over the global market and dominate international politics in as short as a decade’s time (e.g. China’s “Made in China 2025” Plan), and they will achieve their goals at all cost, even when it comes to breaking international rules; simply look at what they’ve done in the South China Sea dispute12, and its shameless violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration when it comes to Hong Kong, just to name a few obvious examples. Now, with their next generation blind to the immoralities of authoritarianism, with most believing that China is the best country of all, are you sure you want your future buried in their hands? Action speaks louder than words, act now, let the world know about Hong Kong. Together,
we have to protect Hong Kong, it is about time we stop China from repressing political truths, and stand up to the acts they’ve committed.
Photo: In The Name of Justice by Jacky Ching
REFERENCES
(1) Archived e-copy of the 2012 MNE proposal: https://web.archive.org/web/20120617010427/http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_2428/MNE_ Guide_(CHI)_Final.pdf (2) Details can be found on page 22-54 of the MNE proposal (linked above) (3) Can be found on page 10 of the manual (in Chinese). Archived e-copy of the China Model National Conditions Teaching Manual: https://www.slideshare.net/ WangHaoZhong/ss-14252905 (4) See South China Morning Post (SCMP) article “Is Chinese national education set to make a comeback in Hong Kong? It’s not if, but how, experts say”, published on 4th August 2017: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2105343/chinese-national-education-set-make-comeback-hong-kong-its (5) SCMP article “Why are Hong Kong teachers so concerned about Basic Law education?”, published on 3rd June 2017: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/ education-community/article/2096727/why-hong-kong-schools-have-teach-basic-law (6) Number of secondary 6 students in Hong Kong in 2019/2020 (48824) can be found on page 71 of Hong Kong Education Bureau’s (2019/2020) Student Enrolment Statistics: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/about-edb/publications-stat/figures/Enrol_2019.pdf (7) Number of school candidates who took the 2020 HKDSE can be found in Table 1 of Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority’s 2020 HKDSE Statistics Overview: https://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/HKDSE/Exam_Report/Examination_Statistics/dseexamstat20_1.pdf (8) News article by The Standard “Liberal studies textbook scrubs out voting, civil disobedience”, published on 18th August 2020: https://www.thestandard.com. hk/breaking-news/section/4/153375/Liberal-studies-textbook-scrubs-out-voting,-civil-disobedience (9) Readers interested can start by reading the following article by The New York Times “China Threat or a Peaceful Rise of China?”: https://archive.nytimes.com/ www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-politics-007.html (10) A bold claim to make here, but COVID did originate from Wuhan, China without a doubt, and China’s partnership with WHO over the coronavirus is prominent, with countless articles posing supporting arguments; Foreign Policy’s article on “How WHO Became China’s Coronavirus Accomplice”, for example, is a great article explaining the claim: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-health-soft-power/ (11) International Court rejects Uyghur genocide complaint against China, 15th December 2020: https://www.tibetsun.com/news/2020/12/15/international-court-rejects-uyghur-genocide-complaint-against-china (12) News article by the BBC “South China Sea dispute: China’s pursuit of resources ‘unlawful’, says US”, published on 14th July 2020, provides a decent introduction to the issue, and a brief explanation on China’s violation of international laws in the said dispute: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53397673
國安法雛型— 《 刑事罪行條例》
回顧殖民惡法如何為國安法鋪路
也許十七年前，政權也未曾料過，一場 殺人案會間接引發大規模民主化示威浪潮， 更逼使其採用更直接的政治手段——繞過本 地諮詢立法，由人大常委會通過《中華人民 共和國香港特別行政區維護國家安全法》（ 俗稱《港區國安法》；下稱「《國安法》」）及列 入基本法附件三，變相為《基本法》第二十三 條（下稱「廿三條」）強行立法；法例至今生效 接近四個月有多。然而條文範圍既廣闊又含 糊，即使沒有實際行動，隨口呼喊「光時五缺」 ，便已墮入法網。 其實早在主權移交前，香港法例已經包 含「廿三條」部分元素。六四事件發生半年 後，中方曾與英方討論在香港落實「廿三條」 的建議；當時英方法律顧問Paul Fifoot提醒 中方代表，指出香港既有的《刑事罪行條例》 早已列明「煽動」、「顛覆」等概念，因此可毋 須為「廿三條」立法，也能達到「維護國家安 全」的效果。然而，英方代表留意到中方認為 香港現行法例下的刑罰或未能達到阻嚇性 作用，因為在中國憲法中，「煽動」、「顛覆」的 最高刑罰皆為終身監禁，與香港法例下的最 高刑罰兩年相距甚大；這顯著的差距亦為日 後2003年「廿三條」草案風波埋下伏筆。再 者，當時英方未有向中方說明，在煽動罪中， 市民仍然有批評政府而免受法律責任的權 利，包括： 顯示女皇陛下在其任何措施上被誤導 或犯錯誤； 或指出依法成立的香港政府或香港憲 制的錯誤或缺點，或法例或司法的錯誤 或缺 點，而目的在於矯正該等錯誤或缺 點； 或慫恿女皇陛下子民或香港居民嘗試 循合法途徑促致改變在香港的依法制 定的事項； 或指出在香港不同階層居民間產生或 有傾向產生惡感及敵意的事項，而目的 在於將其消除。 (不過，上述豁免並未確保「推翻英女王」 的言論不會墮入《刑事罪行條例》9(1)中「煽 動意圖」的法律陷阱。) 及後，港英政府訂立《香港人權法案條 例》，檢視大量陳舊法例，如《社團條例》、《公 安條例》及《刑事罪行條例》等，發現其均不 符合人權法，需要盡快檢討及修正。當中《刑 事罪行條例》中「叛國」及「顛覆」的部分已被 列為「潛在不相容（possible inconsistency） 」，需在法律上作出檢討，但儘管如此，當時 政府卻只集中處理《刑事罪行條例》內的遊 蕩罪。直到1993年，有民間組織對「廿三條」 的任意性及其對人權的潛在威脅作出質詢， 相關法例才再次於英方內部展開討論。因 此，英方法律顧問Jill Barrett當時預計，《刑 事罪行條例》中「叛國」及「顛覆」等概念將會 在主權移交後未來被提呈人大進行釋法。 前任律政司司長梁愛詩曾於「廿三條」立法 研討會中試圖增強煽動罪存在於香港法例 的合理性，指出《刑事罪行條例》的第9及第 10條內的煽動罪乃源自普通法，於1938年編 入，並經過屢次修改。然而，英國法律改革委 員會早於1977年經已指出，煽動罪所提及的 罪行定義乃「模糊不清和不必要(ill-defined and unnecessary)」，因為此罪行源於數世 紀前保障英國皇室及政府不被武裝起義 推翻，實與今天普世價值所提倡的民主概 念——新舊政權能夠通過選票力量，達致和 平交接——相違背。
Image source: Hong Kong Free Press
事實上於1972年，英國曾有三人曾被控 煽動罪，他們被指控共謀暴亂，並以煽動性 文字徵召人民前往北愛爾蘭支援愛爾蘭武 裝共和軍。然而，三人後期獲撤控「共謀暴亂 罪」，而「發佈煽動性文字」一罪則被判處緩 刑。自此之後，英國再無使用煽動罪作出起 訴。反觀香港，在主權移交並修訂基本法後， 政府一直冷待前立法局及英國大律師公會 對煽動罪有關「煽動意圖」的修訂建議。該建 議指出，煽動罪本身不但富有旨在保障皇室 免受輿論壓力的殖民地色彩，更違反了列明 每個人都擁有自由發表意見的權利及思想 自由的《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》。立 法會甚至於2012年通過《正式賦予解放軍皇 等權力》，將香港法例中所有包含「英軍」的 條文改為「駐軍」；對「女王陛下和皇室官方」 的提述，改為「中國中央人民政府或其他主 管機關」的提述。結果，在這幾年間，「煽動 罪」這個潘朵拉盒便被政權打開了，成為異
見者安插莫須有罪名的利器。 不過，香港如今陷入進退兩難的此局 面，實屬政權與人民雙方的責任。惡法其實 一直都存在，卻一直未獲得廣泛關注；也許 是過去的偏安繁華麻醉了我們對主權移交 的不安，亦也許是我們過份信任政權的自我 約束能力、相信它不會隨便挪用英殖時期過 時的法例作出檢控。但更重要的是，無論是 西方國家在殖民時期訂立的模棱兩可的法 例，抑或是近年以反恐為名而挪用的過分廣 闊之條文，都為行政機關提供極大的權力， 更會被極權國家所參考，供其用作打壓國內 異見分子、「符合西方標準」的法律基礎。 自去年八月起，中央政府及親政府媒體屢將 示威者與恐怖主義者相提並論，保安局局長 李家超甚至聲稱會以《反恐條例》檢控示威 者。驟眼看，《國安法》對恐怖主義的定義雖與 《反恐條例》的大致相同、並與《刑事罪行條 例》對嚴重罪行，包括叛國及煽動罪的描述 看似相近，然而《反恐條例》明確指出，「恐怖 主義行為」並不包括在任何宣揚、抗議、持異 見或工業行動的過程中作出或恐嚇作出行 動。結果在《國安法》下，即使原本「廿三條」 草案並沒有「恐怖活動」一概念，但如今幾乎
所有反政府示威都能與「恐怖活 動」扯上關係，把俗稱「和理非」 以外或民主派的抗議行為定性 作「勾結外國或者境外勢力危害 國家安全罪」或「顛覆國家政權 罪」。例如拉布、「掟蕉」等行為或 會分別觸犯「顛覆國家政權罪」 下「嚴重干擾、阻撓、破壞中華人 民共和國中央政權機關或香港 特別行政區政權機關依法履行 職能」及「攻擊、破壞香港特別行 政區政權機關履職場所或設施、 致使其無法正常履行職能」兩項 罪名，以及海外政策倡議工作者 或會觸犯「勾結外國勢力」一罪。 若果政權認為以國安法檢控示 威者會引起國際社會極大迴響， 它仍然可以利用《刑事罪行條 例》作出檢控。 條例除了包括「 其他反英皇罪行」，亦涵蓋一些 輕微行為，例如管有士巴拿、槌 仔等。這些行為都有機會被律政 司以「管有任何物品意圖摧毀或 損壞財產」作出起訴，再以「管有 攻擊性武器」作為交替控罪。然 而此等舉措，難免有特意令示威 者陷入漫長司法程序，藉此威嚇 其他示威者放棄抗爭之嫌。在模 棱兩可的條文下，示威者風聲鶴 淚、人人自危，只得以更隱晦的 手法表達訴求，避免觸碰法例的 灰色地帶。 當然，現在我們知道，比起 國安法，《刑事罪行條例》可以說 只是「小菜一碟」。它既不是依照 普通法的法律行文，而且比起原 廿三條立法草案來得更廣闊、更 含糊。需知道《刑事罪行條例》只 是云云惡法之一：《社團條例》立 法原意乃為打擊左派政治團體
活動，如今卻用作取締民間政治 團體；《教育條例》原本用以針對 左派學校，並賦予教育局任意取 消教師註冊的權力。隨著主權移 交，當年受到港英政府打壓的一 方，如今成為了打壓民主價值的 一份子。 今後，政權只會變本加厲將 法律武器化，打壓所有偏離黨路 線的市民 。不論是「勇武派」，還 是「和理非」，在政權眼中沒有雖 比誰更高尚，反正兩派都是對其 執政構成威脅的一伙人。政權一 方面極力對本地歷史文化「去殖 民化」，另一方面卻完好無缺地 保留富有殖民主義色彩的法律 條文。現在，也許每一個香港人 心中都要有一個答案：如何在後 國安法時代掙扎求存？ 2020 本土研究社解密：《刑事罪行條例》如何激活廿三條的惡法奇謀
參考文章：
1989 FCO 40/2672 Relations between Hong Kong and China: Chinese charges of subversion in Hong Kong 1990 FCO 40/2932 Political activism accusations of subversion in Hong Kong 1993 FCO 40/4116 Article XIX (lobby group for press freedom) and Hong Kong Journalist Association freedom of expression Codification of the Criminal Law Treason Sedition and Allied Offences (Consultation Paper) [1977] EWLC C72 2012 Feikert-Ahalt, Sedition in England: The Abolition of a Law From a Bygone Era
齊上齊落
「旁聽師」對手足的不離不棄之情
Image source: Wikiwand
這天和朋友來到裁判法院，為身陷囹圄 的友人旁聽裁決。 截至去年十月，《逃犯條例修訂草案》運 動（下稱反修例運動）的被捕人數已經破萬。 加上疫情反覆，大量與反修例運動有關的案 件都被押後處理。對不幸被捕的人而言，伴 隨而來便是等待著更為漫長的法律程序。那 怕最後被判無罪，當中的等待、反覆上庭，均 對被告的生活及心理造成沉重的負擔。 自從反修例運動開始，到法院旁聽的市 民前所未有地多，而旁聽甚至不知不覺已經 成為他們生活的一部分。來到法院，目的只 有一個：默默地支持不幸身陷囹圄的示威 者，遇到不被保釋、需要還押候審，甚至被判 入獄的案件，「旁聽師」更會即時「轉職」成為 「送車師」。他們互不相識，但在冰冷冷的法 院大樓內，看到彼此衣著、年紀，仿佛有著默 契，便斷定對方也是「自己人」，互相噓寒問 暖。「旁聽師」一職並沒有年齡限制：有放學 趕過來的學生，穿著深色風褸，迴避在法院 外守候多時的記者；有手持購物袋，準備在 旁聽後買餸的家庭主婦。與此同時，俗稱「銀 髮族」的退休人士更佔了「旁聽師」好一半。 當一般人以為這群「銀髮族」只是早上跟其 他「老友記」嘆過一盅兩件一樣，在炎炎夏日 找個有冷氣的「瓦遮頭」避暑，他們其實對法 律程序瞭如指掌，對法庭亦甚有意見。 「呢位手足啱啱喺警署送嚟過堂，應該唔使 搞太耐就有得保釋。」 「嗱呢個官啊！咪睇佢兇殺惡煞咁嘅 樣，以為佢一定唔批保釋，但其實佢每單 case都睇得好小心，甚至有時會鬧返控方開 嘅條件太苛刻，太不近人情。」 「唉... ...呢位手足就真係慘啲喇。遇着 呢個釘官（意指裁判法院及區域法院，處理 刑事案件的法官傾向裁決定罪），恐怕會俾 個官誅死。」 縱使他們大多數沒有受過專業的法律 訓練，然而從他們的一言一語，不難感受到 他們對被捕者的關懷。因為「旁聽師」們心 知，被檢控、甚至被判入獄的人，並不是冷冰 冰的數字，而是一個個有故事的血肉之軀。 被捕人士面對著以月計的法律程序，身邊除 了親友，還有「旁聽師」與他們一起走每一步 路。 雖然這宗案件還存有爭議，但他還是選 擇了認罪，務求盡快為此事作個了結；只因 他知道近年律政司對社會運動案件的處理 手法：務求令抗爭者被法庭重判。若下級法 院輕判抗爭者，政府一方便會上訴至高等法 院，甚至終審法院，有如賭徒不服輸的態度。 法官考慮到肇事警員沒有受傷，家人和 老師為他摘寫的求情信，以及感化報告，最 終判處了非監禁式刑罰。得以避過牢獄之 災，朋友們互相祝賀他；一眾「旁聽師」得悉 友人毋須入獄，亦身同感受，為他鬆一口氣。 當時他的腦袋仍然一片空白，上庭前生怕被 送入監獄，甚至勞教所；聽到裁決，一時仍未 反應過來。 「要保重啊後生仔！」一名姨姨跟他說。 他呆了，腦袋霎時空白一片，只是輕輕 朝她點頭示意謝謝。 接下來，「旁聽師」來到法院大堂，等待 著他處理相關程序。 「喂！手足佢落到嚟喇！」一名中年先生 看見升降機門打開後跟眾人說道。 「準備好遮陣未？駛唔駛俾件風褸佢 遮一遮？」一名銀髮姨姨問。 不出五秒，我和朋友，及一眾「旁聽師」， 搭建了一條迷你通道，闊度剛剛足夠讓一個 人走過。在法院門外等候多時的記者及攝影 師，恐怕只能夠拍下一團團黑影予總部「交 差」。一直走到數百米外的紅綠燈，看見記者 們已放棄跟隨，眾人才收起雨傘。 這些看似微不足道的舉動，正是對手足最大 的幫助。 自從疫情爆發，以及港版國安法生效 後，街頭示威暫告一段落。即使親中媒體在 就此慶賀國安法的「成效」，然而我們知道， 即使集會、遊行等和平地表達訴求的機會遭 到打壓，每個人心中的信念仍是不滅的。引 用本土民主前線前發言人梁天琦的一番話： 「相信罷交稅等等和平手段，繼續去 做。我鼓勵你地去做，我希望你地去做。我唔 希望因為有人批評你地嘅手段，結果就完全 放棄你地相信嘅嘢。同時間，相信勇武抗爭 嘅人，一樣要繼續做。」 反修例運動剛剛開始之時，示威者曾迅 速地定義自己，促成「和理非」與「勇武派」之 分。但在後國安法時代，一年前的「身份」似 乎不再重要，很多人甚至遊走於不同的崗位 之間。過去，我們不時聽到有人計較身邊的 人在抗爭中付出的多與少、誰比誰走得較前 等等，反之亦然。其實，政治的本質便是爭取 別人的支持，甚至要令不支持自己的人改變 立場。既然眾人目標一致，所謂「一樣米養百 樣人」，若十個同路人之中，出現十種不同的 政治光譜，也實屬理所當然。每個人的能力 及風險管理亦不盡相同，不斷質疑別人做得 多與少只是意氣之話。 當然，現在此等比較風氣的大勢已成過 去。目前而言，抗爭前路的能見度漸低，因 為國安法的底線實在太過模糊；會不會有一 天，光顧「黃店」、到法院做「旁聽師」、瀏覽「 立場新聞」，也會被定義為顛覆國家政權？ 誠然，只有在能力範圍內盡最大的努力，在 漫長而漆黑的抗爭之路上互相扶持，香港人 才能並肩走到黎明破曉之時。 在此，祝願各位在亂流下平安。
