National education need not be seen as brainwashing

Ronald Ng believes Singapore’s program gives useful pointers on a curriculum which will not draw bias claims and can be an example for HK

Recently Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has hinted that Hong Kong can incorporate its own unique national and international characteristics into its national education curriculum. But in a politicized Hong Kong, any initiative to strengthen national education would inevitably attract criticism about “brainwashing”. Does having a national education program necessarily mean having a “brainwashing” program? Again, Hong Kong can look to Singapore for a possible answer.

The Singapore Ministry of Education launched national education in schools in May 1997. It clearly stated that its purpose is: “To develop national cohesion, the instinct for survival and confidence in the future by: Fostering a sense of identity, pride and self-respect as Singaporeans; knowing the Singapore story — how Singapore succeeded against the odds to become a nation; understanding Singapore’s unique challenge, constraints and vulnerabilities, which make us different from other countries; and instilling the core values of our way of life, and the will to prevail that ensure our continued success and well-being.”

Those guiding principles could easily be adapted to the Hong Kong situation by some such substitutions:

Fostering a sense of identity, pride and selfrespect as Hong Kong citizens and by extension as Chinese citizens; knowing the Hong Kong story — how Hong Kong, described as a barren piece of rock in 1841, succeeded against the odds and became a financial hub; understanding Hong Kong’s unique advantages, challenges, constraints and vulnerabilities; and instilling the core values of its way of life, and the will to prevail, that ensure its continued success and well-being.

Most Hong Kong people were at one time refugees from the Chinese mainland, or are descendants of refugees, with stories of the hardship they have faced in their hometowns. For that reason, it is possible that their sense of Chinese nationhood might not be as strong as those in the mainland. The aim of the national education program should therefore be to foster their sense of being a Hong Kong person as well as being Chinese.

I shall now draw on my personal experience of national education which I have received in Singapore. It comprised lessons on the history of Singapore, of the years under Japanese rule, of the racial and religious riots, of the rising standard of living, of the food and fun we enjoy in Singapore, of the geopolitical situation surrounding Singapore and more. At no time was there any talk of the People’s Action Party, the ruling party, being the reason for her success. Thus it was not a machine for brainwashing or for garnering support for the ruling party. It was designed to instill a sense of pride in the country, and an understanding of the peculiar situation we are in.

Can a similar program not be crafted for Hong Kong? It could comprise a heavy dose of history of China, including its cultural, artistic and technological achievements, with the aim of inculcating pride in the Chinese nation. It should include the importance of the mainland to the development of Hong Kong and the enormous support the motherland has given the SAR in its time of need.

In order to lay the foundation to understand the importance of Hong Kong to the Chinese nation, it should also include contributions made by the British administrations over the years in turning Hong Kong into an important financial hub. This way, by presenting a balanced view of the development of Hong Kong, it might prevent the program from being dubbed a “brainwashing” exercise.

That Hong Kong has played an important role in the development of modern China cannot be denied. Sun Yat-sen, one of the greatest leaders of modern China, studied in Hong Kong and gained his medical license in the city. When officials of the Qing Dynasty’s embassy in London kidnapped him to be sent back to the mainland, he was saved by an Englishman who was his teacher when he was studying medicine in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong also played an important part during the early years of the opening-up of the mainland to the world. These are things Hong Kong could be proud of, and by emphasizing the cooperation between Hong Kong and the mainland and the mutual benefit resulting from that, it would bring pride to Hong Kong residents for being both Hong Kong citizens and Chinese.

Hong Kong has returned to China. It is therefore only correct for the Hong Kong government to institute means to help Hong Kong people adjust to that reality, instill pride in simultaneously being a Hong Kong citizen and a Chinese national. National education is one way of doing that. If the Hong Kong government sees to it that it is structured so as not to be seen as a “brainwashing” program, it will find acceptance and support. The program in Singapore is worthy of their study and emulation.