一个伊中旧生对“国民教育科”的看法

最近,香港市民对政府的“国民教育”措施议论纷纷,很多说这是“洗脑教育”,更有说这是“共产党员教育”,提出反对。伊中旧生会也联名提出反对,並要求校方承諾不會在伊中推行國民教育科。在我个人立场看来,香港中小学教育(包括很多很有名的学校的教育方针)早就充满了各种各样的教条灌输。所以,这些反对的声音是过烈的反应,是双重的标准。

我本人中学的教育,有三年是在天主教学校中渡过的, F1和F2是在九龙华仁书院,F7是在九龙喇沙书院,其余的时间是在伊中。 

在华仁F1和F2的时候,每周要修数节“圣经知识”(Biblical Knowledge) ,基本上就是灌输天主教的教义。在喇沙F7,每天也要修一节“伦理”(Ethics) ,基本上也是灌输天主教的教条。不管学生是天主教徒与否,这些科目,还是非得考试通过才有升级的机会。我相信这是一百数十年来香港每一所天主教中学习以为常的教育方针。 

如果天主教中学可以在课程上灌输这样的“教条教育”,那么别的学校放进“國民教育科” ,又有何不可呢?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to 一个伊中旧生对“国民教育科”的看法

  1. Max Wong says:

    I think you have to read the above post together with the other post I have on the subject. Compulsory religious studies in my Catholic School years was only given as an example of “brainwashing” school curriculum. There are other examples of compulsory study materials given in the other posts. Let me post all of them here:

    Excuse me for writing in English. The Chinese software in my computer is not working properly. I also apologize for not noticing the difference between 伊利沙伯中學國民教育舊生關注組 and伊中舊生會.

    The purpose of my message is not to judge the value of 國民教育, and even less do I dare to suggest our beloved school to accept or reject the program. The purpose of my message is to make the point that: “With so many voices opposing the National Education program, do we really realize that we have already received a large number of indoctrinations during our school years? If we do, why do we single out our objection on the National Education program and passively accept others?”

    The answer has been partly provided by the very eloquent message of Mr Well Lee: “It is not the indoctrination process in education to which one objects; rather it is the content of the doctrine which decides one’s choice.” This, however, immediately leads to the next question: “Who is best to be the judge of the content of the education material?” In my view, hopefully, we have a sensible Education Department which may make the “unbiased” decision by following the national and international history as well as development trends. A fair and unbiased decision may still not be possible since “fairness” and “biasness” are relative terms. Then, is following the majority always right? Not necessarily! (Not long ago, some schools in southern USA chose to abandon the teaching of Darwin’s Evolution due to pressure from the majority of the parents and the outcries of extreme religious groups.)

    In describing the National Education program, it was mentioned “內容偏頗﹐反倫理﹐是非顛倒”, and the term “荼毒” was also used. I have not studied the program content, therefore, I cannot pronounce, in my own opinion, on the suitability of the National Education program in school education. However, I remember through my personal experience of the primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong, there were quite a few occasions in which official text-books (as well as teachers) showed complexion which suits those words of description. The religious classes I had (mentioned in my last message) could be cited as examples; the massacres of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians in Jerusalem in 1099 was (and probably still is) described in history books as “holy” and we were supposed to worship such “wars”; the infamous Opium War caused by drug smuggling and drug pushing by the East India Co. was taught to us as “the Chinese needing British goods”; the rule of the great British Empire was always glorified while the atrocities committed by her troops to the natives in Africa, Australia, N. America and the Middle East were dismissed as “disciplining the savage”. The above are just a few examples in a multitude. However, I must admit that, in many of the “civilized” countries I visited, such education materials of glorifying one country’s past while downplaying (or even omitting) its atrocities can be commonly found in schools – Japan, USA, UK, Israel, France, (and even Canada!), etc. Due to the stand of the colonial Hong Kong Government in the past, such biased materials were approved for education and have infiltrated our text-books and schools. Somehow, we accepted them – no protest!

    In the eve of sending out a petition, I like to ask ourselves to sit back and consider this analytically, “Is the content of the National Education program that much worse than the materials I have cited? If so, please go ahead and protest! If not, singling out the National Education program as a target of protest will be infringing on ‘double-standard’”.

    Yours truly,
    Max Wong

    • Chi Hung Chan says:

      1. I completely agree that there were a “large number of indoctrinations during our school years” (like the examples quoted in your fifth paragraph) trying to inject biased views into the mindsets of the students. But that was then and now is now. If current textbooks still carry these biased views (or propagandas), smart students should be able to recognize them and protest (or leave that school and find another school, if this choice exists.). (Therefore I don’t object to the revised policy of the HK government that schools be allowed to make their choice to introduce the subject or not, provided that sufficient schools exist for those who want the subject and for those who don’t.)
      2. I completely agree that “A fair and unbiased decision may still not be possible since “fairness” and “biasness” are relative terms.” I believe what those National Education concern groups in Hong Kong want is that events happening in the past should be judged in a fair and unbiased manner during the class. Again, of course, this is not possible. So they want the events to be discussed openly and freely so that everyone can express opinions (and teachers should not give scores based on which side (pro or con) the student stands on). (This is my belief only, based on newspaper readings – I have not verified.)

  2. Chi Hung Chan says:

    我覺得將宗教科和國民教育科比較 , 是不合適的 , 因為你有自由選擇讀宗教學校或不讀宗教學校 , 但是如果根據政府原來訂下的政策 , 即强行在所有學校推行國民教育科 , 則學生及家長無選擇權。
    我不反對學校 (例如漢華 , 培橋 ) 自行决定是否推行國民教育科 , 但要事先通告所有市民 , 讓學生和家長們選擇入讀或不入讀該等學校 , 另外亦要有足夠的 「非國民教育科 」學校 , 讓那些不選擇讀國民教育科的學生入讀。
    註:以上所指的 “ 國民教育科 ”、是指其實是洗腦式的 “ 愛黨教育 ” , 如將來這科改成為 “ 愛國家教育 ” 則我贊成强行推行此科

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>