The truth is threatened: the National Security Law and its relevance to students
by Minhee Ho
The world has not been a calm place. Violence and conflict dominate the news. Societies are divided by political disagreements compounded by the large amount of false information circulating the media. In such a chaotic time, possessing the ability to think critically and communicate ideas respectfully has become more important than ever.
The IB has carried a reputation for incorporating these skills into education and creating an environment where students are able to articulate their thoughts freely and truthfully.
However, for schools in Hong Kong, that may soon change.
What will you think? (Image courtesy of Pexels)
The National Security Law has stirred tension across the city’s population, with many fearing the new rules will endanger the academic freedom of students and teachers.
The National Security Law was enacted on June 30th. According to a government spokesperson, “The purpose of the legislation is to effectively prevent, curb and punish crimes … that endanger national security.” This includes four offences: secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. Minor violations will result in a prison sentence of three to ten years, while “serious cases” will require more service time.
At first glance, this may appear very reasonable. However, loose definitions combined with fear of the unknown could lead to a heavily censored education system.
Last year, more than 3,000 children and teenagers were arrested for participating in demonstrations. During a forum in July, Chief Executive Carrie Lam claimed the high number of student protesters were the result of “anti-China forces penetrating schools.”
The government has taken action by encouraging teachers to “promote national security” and “raise awareness … of the obligation to abide by the law.” The Education Bureau has promised to remove all “illegal”, “independence-inciting” books from school campuses and is currently searching through libraries to ensure texts are “appropriate for the curriculum” and “have suitable content.” Lennon Walls have been banned and any teacher who hears a student insult the Chinese anthem is encouraged to call the police.
By teaching children the consequences of advocating for independence and “correcting” a system believed to have raised pro-democracy rebels, the government is able to discourage young protesters from attempting to regroup and nurture a new generation of patriotic, law-obeying citizens.
Lam claims the new law will not impact Hong Kong’s academic freedom. However, reality speaks otherwise.
In May, Lee Kwan-pui, a music teacher at Heung To Middle School was fired after her class sang “Glory to Hong Kong” during a performance. Lee claims she “never brought [her] political stance to campus” and actually encouraged students to “avoid social topics” when selecting music. However, despite her efforts to defend herself, she was still held accountable for “not taking a harder line against protest-related actions.”
Other teachers have suffered similar experiences. Lau Pei-lee, who works at a girl’s school, was forced to endure a month-long investigation from the Education Bureau after mentioning the Lam King-wee bookstore case during class. Though she didn’t receive any official consequences, she described the experience as “psychological torture.”
The lack of clarity coupled with the severity of punishment has aroused fear within the school community: teachers are unsure of what is “allowed” and “not allowed”, making class discussions difficult for certain subjects.
The Humanities and Law Faculty of the University of Hong Kong recently sent an email to all HKU staff, advising them to “remain neutral” and “be mindful” of their language during lectures, warning that “any behaviour in eliciting further discussion on sensitive issues must be avoided.” Other schools have followed suit, with some teachers purposefully avoiding government and protest-related topics altogether.
The Renaissance College Year 10 Individuals and Societies curriculum begins with a unit on China, focusing on its political and economic status and covering major historical events, such as the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. During a class discussion, after a student mentioned the Tiananmen Square Massacre, her teacher quickly told her, “We’re not going to discuss that because it’s not really relevant, plus, quite frankly, it’s a dangerous topic to talk about, especially in this era with the National Security Law.”
The open reluctance to even mention “controversial” subjects highlights the uneasiness the National Security Law has imprinted in society. While legal safety is obviously important, instilling such strict censorship limits one’s ability to question and express, essentially teaching children to stay silent; a possibly deliberate move on the government’s part to hush criticism and prevent future uprisings.
Last year, in a Personal and Social Education class, PSE teacher and school principal Dr. Harry Brown was discussing the Hong Kong protests with his students when he suggested they “stop looking at the news,” adding that he “stopped reading the news” and had found the experience to be considerably less stressful. The intention of his message was to discourage students from dwelling on the negative political circumstance and alleviate the worries they were feeling towards the situation.
However, when handling an issue that directly affects us, the “grin and bear it” method is not an appropriate solution. While the protests are a sensitive matter, this is not an excuse to pretend they didn’t happen. If anything, its complexity magnifies the need to understand and educate ourselves on the topic as much as possible. Telling a student to “stop looking at the news” teaches them to ignore problems rather than address them, breeding ignorance and obliviousness; both extremely dangerous traits in an era where broadcasting false information has become easier than ever.
The mission statement of Renaissance College is to “develop global citizens who … are empowered to take progressive action.” As students and teachers, it is our collective obligation to fulfill this promise and stay true to our principles, regardless of whatever obstacles surround us. Education was made to be accessible to everyone; a human right. We cannot afford to let it become politicised.