On July 30, 2012 the New York Times
quoted Jiang Yudui of the pro-Beijing China Civic Education Promotion
Association of Hong Kong as saying, “A brain needs washing if there
is a problem, just as clothes need washing if they're dirty, and a
kidney needs washing if it's sick.”
I don't think that helped. Here's
what's going on.
In an effort by Chinese President Hu
Jintao to instill in the youth of Hong Kong a sense of love and
respect for the motherland, talk of “moral and national education”
began. A small handbook entitled “The China Model” was
introduced and plans were made known to introduce it into the
curriculum of every school level from the youngest elementary school
grades through high school, beginning in 2012 as an option, but being
fully incorporated and compulsory by 2016.
What's in the handbook?
- A description of the Communist Party as progressive, selfless and united.
- High criticism for the multiparty systems of Great Britain, the United States and, to a certain extent, Hong Kong.
What ISN'T in the handbook?
- Any mention of the Cultural Revolution.
- Any mention of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Enter: Joshua Wong, a 15-year old student and founder of The Alliance Against Moral and National Education, or “Scholarism” (founded on May 29th of 2011). After working on this paper over the past six weeks, I feel as though I know Josh personally, so I would like to introduce him – and Scholarism - to you through this video. However, if you have only enough time to watch one video, please choose the music video at the end.
Organized by Josh and many, many, MANY
others like him, but carried out almost exclusively through social media,
protests against moral and national education began and grew like
bread dough with too much yeast. A time line might be helpful.
- 7/1/12 and again on 7/29/12 - marches through the streets prove that most of Hong Kong citizens agreed with the movement.
- 8/30/12 - 50 students begin what is to be a 3-day occupation of the public park beneath the Hong Kong government headquarters. Three students begin a hunger strike.
- 9/1/12 – after a concert, the three students end their hunger strike and 10 others take their place.
- 9/3/12 - it is announced that the occupation will continue indefinitely until the government backs down.
- 9/7/12 – protest organizers count over 120,000 protesters in attendance. Other reports have the number at around 90,000, but the police say there were only 36,000. (I suppose the lack of veracity of such reports is to be expected, given the agendas of the differing sides. However, the pictures posted on FB and the web site look hard to fake.)
- 9/8/12 – Hong Kong Department of Education announces that the issue has been “shelved”. (Note the significance of this date: one day before elections.)
- 9/9/12 – Elections are held for Hong Kong's legislative council. Although strict and complex rules always result in a pro-government majority, the pro-democracy camp does very well where free voting is allowed and three very key and powerful seats are gained.)
- Date unknown – occupation disipates.
- 10/17/12 – another gathering called “The Universal Wide Awake” occurs at the Civic Plaza. Reports say around 6,000 attend from the Scholarism camp and around 2,000 from the pro-Beijing camp. A diagram of the plan by the police to separate the two camps is distributed via Facebook and the Scholarism web page prior to the event and, fearing it will result in an unproductive shouting match, students choose to gather outside the arena. This decision is announced via the same avenues and the conflict is averted.
As evidenced by the event just 10 days
prior to this writing, this issue is not dead. The fact that the
China Model has been “shelved” and not withdrawn will keep it
alive. As stated on the Scholarism.com web site, “red-dyed
communization” will always be a threat and a reason to “protect a
child's freedom of thought”.
Given that the movement was founded by
a teenager living in the most progressive city in perhaps the most
technologically industrious nation, is it any wonder that this
movement was perpetuated via social media? You Tube, Facebook,
Twitter posts, broadcast panel discussions, blogs and web pages seem
to be endless from the onset until the present. Perhaps my favorite
part is that each consecutive blog or post seems to have an
increasing number of comments posted below it, showing that citizen
journalism is running free even where the people are not.
Think back on the time line. Would any
of it be possible (other than the oppression part) without social
media? From a physical context, would a hunger strike have been
effective if the hungry couldn't have been posting blogs from their
tents? From a social context, would they have known how to wear the
red band over their eyes if pictures hadn't been posted on news feeds
of others wearing them? From a psychological context, would 90,000
students have found the courage to stand up for their convictions if
they hadn't seen the number of hits on Joshua Wong's You Tube video
OR if they hadn't recognized the China Model as brainwashing? Not in
a nation where such things are strictly monitored and even outlawed.
(Original Scholarism Facebook Banner)
(Post 9/9/12 Scholarism Facebook Banner)
In a place like Hong Kong where the “rules” went from being relatively few and based on the good of the majority to being too heavy to bear, the irony of Scholarism is almost too much to take in. It makes me ecstatic to see democracy in its purest form practiced so well in a non-democratic state and led by a 15-year old, no less. His and countless other parents, his and countless other teachers all played roles in his story, but no one – not even himself in his own protests over being called a hero – can take away Joshua Wong's role. Nor can we overstate the role of social media itself. In this and so many other issues, it took on a life of its own.
What's wrong with wanting students to
be proud of their country? We teach the Pledge of Allegiance in our
kindergartens and sing the National Anthem at our sports events.
However, we have the freedom to say that we don't want our child
participating in either of these practices and we also
have the opportunity to run for a position on the school boards
where decisions such as these can be put to popular vote.
Would this issue have existed without social media? Yes, the issue would have. But, the resolution could never have been possible without it. I quote from a September 3rd propaganda TV broadcast. (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_P0B40FnBTI The translation is a little rough. This I know, not because I know Chinese, but because I know English.)
“In recent days, Scholarism has
indeed become the focus of Hong Kong. However, after September 9,
when results of the Legislative Council are revealed, they will
become completely useless in an instant.
“Even as calculated as Martin Lee,
“an experienced barrister”, once lamented that he was like a
child playing on a see saw with a giant. Several more “Little Long
Hair” on the street on Hong Kong, how can they obstruct the big
wheel of Hong Kong construction?”
Yes, Mr. Lee, the analogy is a good
one. But though the government intended to portray themselves as the
giant, I believe they are the child opposite the giant on the other end of the see saw.
Kathleen
Scholarism music video:
