Are Hong Kongers Chinese?

Are Hong Kongers Chinese?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 12, 2012

Summary: The Pan Democrats did not do as well as expected. Has Hong Kong's democracy "hit a wall?" Speculation is superfluous. After all, clashes in beliefs, and divisions and reconciliations are to be expected under democracy. They are a necessary learning experience for political parties within a democracy. One thing is worth watching. The student movement has inspired the current generation of students. The younger generation is likely to become the prime mover in the Hong Kong community. The Beijing authorities, the Hong Kong government, and the democrats need to be prepared. Only then will they be ready for the next wave of democratic challenges.

Full Text below:

Hong Kongers' "Oppose National Education" campaign succeeded. But it did not lead to Democratic Party victories at the Legislative Council polls. This paradox is worth pondering. Actually, it is not that difficult to explain. One. This particular student campaign was directed more at the Hong Kong government than at Beijing. Two. Radical elements within the Pan Democrat forces split off and scored victories. This was definitely a result of the student movement. This led to in a shift in the political spectrum. Three. The Legislative Council is not a product of universal suffrage. Four. The Pan Democrats failed to allocate their votes. They won votes but lost seats.

By chance, the "Oppose National Education" campaign coincided with the Legislative Council elections. It revealed Hong Kong's complex social psychology and political dynamics. Following Hong Kong's retrocession in 1997, Hong Kongers wanted assurances their interests would be preserved and that "one country, two systems" would be honored. These motivated demonstrations opposing Article 23 of the Basic Law and supporting the direct election of the Chief Executive. This time the government imposed "moral and national education." Emotionally this was an even more severe assault on Hong Kongers's feelings.

Put simply, the motive for "Moral and National Education" was the sense that Hong Kongers did not identify closely enough wtih Mainland China. Put simply, if one refuses to undergo national education, is one still Chinese? A poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong earlier this year suggests that only 17% of all Hong Kongers consider themselves "Chinese." The survey is controversial. But the Beijing authorities are unhappy with the figure. The anxiety felt by Mainland officials In Hong Kong can be imagined.

The notion that as citizens, one ought to accept National Education is superficially plausible. But Hong Kong primary and secondary schools have long included civics and social studies classes. When it comes to social order and social ethics, can anyone really argue that Hong Kongers take a back seat to Mainlanders? Hong Kong was returned to China fifteen years ago. Does anyone still doubt Hong Kongers' Chinese identity? Is it really necessary to impose outdated notions of patriotism and nationalism on the next generation? Is this progress or retrogression?

The best way to increase Hong Kongers' identification with the Chinese nation, is to enhance the prosperity of Mainland China. Democracy and progress are like the fable "The North Wind and the Sun." Hong Kongers are willing to be Chinese, identify with China, and take pride in being Chinese. But the government has adopted a "North Wind" strategy. It has called for unified teaching guidelines, standard textbooks, and school sanctions against teachers who refuse to cooperate. Such administrative high-handedness is bound to provoke a backlash.

One thing in particular angers Hong Kongers. The Hong Kong Department of Education written lesson guidelines includes numerous teaching examples. One example addresses the national flag. It reads, "When the national flag is raised, I feel truly excited. At such a moment, I feel proud to be Chinese ... My eyes tear up. What an exciting moment!" One young father who participated in the protest said, "Suppose my children read this lesson, then saw me fail to weep during the raising of the five-star flag? Would they report me to the authorities for lack of patriotism?"

Does linking "patriotism" to such details really contribute to a stronger sense of national identity or righteous patriotism? It is highly doubtful. By contrast, when Hong Kongers are asked whether they are "Hong Kongers" or "Chinese," they instinctively answer "Hong Kongers." Does this mean they do not identify with China? Hong Kong culture is different from Mainland culture. Hong Kong was colonized by Great Britain for half a century. Hong Kong is heterogeneous. These facts must be respected. This does not mean Hong Kongers should be perceived as "aliens." This does not mean they should be transformed and remoulded. Why are Hong Kongers not Chinese? Who can say that Hong Kongers are not sufficiently "Chinese?"

Only 17% of Hong Kongers consider themselves "Chinese." Following the "Oppose National Education" demonstrations, can the pro-Bejing establishment retain the upper hand in Legislative Council elections? Beijng probably ought to take a closer look. In recent years, Hong Kongers' "Hong Konger consciousness" has increased. This reflects concerns about the loss of Hong Kong's unique characteristics and autonomy. In response, Beijing ought to make concessions. It ought to give Hong Kongers more space. It should not speculate about their lack of patriotism or attempt to impose improper constraints.

The Pan Democrats did not do as well as expected. Has Hong Kong's democracy "hit a wall?" Speculation is superfluous. After all, clashes in beliefs, and divisions and reconciliations are to be expected under democracy. They are a necessary learning experience for political parties within a democracy. One thing is worth watching. The student movement has inspired the current generation of students. The younger generation is likely to become the prime mover in the Hong Kong community. The Beijing authorities, the Hong Kong government, and the democrats need to be prepared. Only then will they be ready for the next wave of democratic challenges.

香港人是不是中國人？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.12

香港民間「反國教」運動的成功，並未換得民主黨在立法會選舉的勝利，是個值得玩味的現象，但這其實並不難解釋：一，此次學運「反港府」的針對性大於「反北京」；二，泛民派激進勢力的分裂及勝出確受學運催化，導致政治光譜位移；三，立法會畢竟仍非全面普選產生；四，泛民派無配票機制，贏了選票，輸了席次。

反國教學運和立法會選舉的時間碰撞，雖是偶然，卻同樣反映了香港社會人心與政治的錯雜情結。九七回歸後，香港人最在乎的是香港的利益會不會被犧牲，「一國兩制」的承諾有沒有被遵守；先前反基本法廿三條及要求特首直選的大示威，皆是因此而發。而這次港府要強行實施「德育及國民教育科」，在感情上更是嚴重刺痛香港人的心。

簡單地說，「德育及國民教育科」的推動，背後隱含著的基本想像正是：香港人對中國的認同不夠。用口語敘述就成為：不接受國民教育，你還是中國人嗎？今年初，香港大學所發布的一份民調，僅有一成七的香港人自認是「中國人」；雖然調查方式不無爭議，但這個數字讓北京當局感到不快，駐港中國官員的不悅與不安更可想而知。

表面上看，「做為公民，就必須接受國民教育」，似乎是言之成理的說法。但香港中小學自來即有其公民及社會科目，要論社會的秩序井然或公民的倫理規範，誰能說香港的公民素質不如大陸？再說，香港回歸中國已十五年，若至今還在懷疑香港人的中國認同，企圖用老套的愛國主義及民族大義加諸香港的下一代，這是進步還是開倒車？

要加強港人的民族認同，最好的方式其實是提升中國的繁榮、民主與進步；就如同「北風與太陽」的寓言一樣，讓香港人甘願融入，認同以身為中國人為傲。但這次港府採取的卻是「北風」策略，規定統一課綱指引，制定標準教材，並要求學校對拒絕配合的教師祭出處分；這樣的行政高壓手段，當然引起反彈。

而最讓香港人頭皮發麻的，則是港府教育局在課綱指引中所撰寫的若干教學實例。比如，其中一例提到對國旗的感情說：「在國旗升起時，我確實是激動了。這一刻，我感受到作為中國人的自豪……，我的眼眶一下子紅了，多麼振奮人心的時刻！」對此，一個參加示威的年輕父親就難以苟同地說：「如果我的孩子念了這一課，他看到我在升五星旗時沒有流淚，他會不會檢舉我不愛國？」

在學校教育中，「愛國」的價值如果被連繫到如此微小的細節上，是不是真有助於強化民族認同或愛國大義，令人存疑。相對的，當香港民眾被問到自覺是「香港人」或「中國人」時，直覺回答是「香港人」，這難道能作為他不認同中國的反證？香港文化之所以不同於內地，是它被英國殖民一個半世紀所形成；這樣的「異質」是香港的特色，應該給予尊重，而不該視他們為「異類」，企圖用自己的模子來改造他們。為什麼香港人不是中國人？誰有資格說香港人的中國成色不足？

試想，若香港真只有一成七的民眾自認是「中國人」，那麼，歷經這次「反國教」示威，立法會選舉還可能是傾中的建制派居上風的局面嗎？其間虛實，恐怕需要北京更細心咀嚼。近年港人的「香港意識」不斷升高，這反映的是他們擔憂香港特色與自主性的失卻；對此，北京該做的是讓出位置，給港人有足夠的空間，而不是一味猜測他們愛國意識不足而企圖妄加制約。

同樣的，這次泛民主派的表現不如預期，也毋需解讀為香港民主政治已經進入了「撞牆期」。畢竟，在民主過程中，理念的衝撞、分裂與調和都是必經的起伏，也是民主黨派必要的學習經驗。最值得觀察的是，這次學運對學生世代產生了極大的激盪作用，年輕一代極可能成為香港社運動員的新主力；北京、港府或民主派都得及早準備，才可能因應下一波來勢洶洶的民主衝擊。