By Megan Chan

Hong Kong’s political tensions and protests may have died down in the wake of the recent coronavirus pandemic, but it was only a matter of time before politics would become pressing yet again. As the number of cases in Hong Kong dwindles, many have decided to move their focus away from the pandemic and pick up from where they left off. With increased discussion over partisan matters and clashes over the National Anthem Bill and National Security Law, politics are steadfastly becoming the front and center once again. However, while some are ready to embrace that mindset, others maintain that politics, at this moment of time, ought to continue taking a backseat. 

On the afternoon of May 14th, RCHK’s Facebook page posted a 30-second video thanking emergency workers for their continued efforts during the coronavirus pandemic. The video compiled letters and cards made by RCHK secondary students, which thanked frontline emergency services for their work during the COVID-19 crisis. Included were thank-you letters to the police — one such example praised the police force for its “constant loyalty and courage in keeping Hong Kong safe, upholding the law with patience, kindness, and humility.”

The latter prompted backlash from many members of the RCHK community, most prominently among its alumni and recent Year 13 graduates. In under 24 hours, the video accumulated over 3.4k views — almost double, if not triple RCHK’s typical Facebook video view count — and over 100 comments. Many of the comments were written by current or former RCHK students, who expressed disappointment regarding the publication of the video. Some also emailed complaints to the school administration, most notably members of senior leadership, including Dr Harry Brown. The video was quickly taken down on the morning of May 15th in the interest of protecting students within the video. 

At that point in time, the political tensions in Hong Kong were still simmering —  the proposal of the National Anthem Bill had only started to unfold, and the pandemic remained on the forefront of most people’s minds. However, the impacts felt by Hong Kong youth during last year’s protests still ran deep, and the praise of police officers was quick to garner backlash. The main criticisms lodged at the school administration revolved around RCHK’s claims of political neutrality, a stance that was heavily enforced at the beginning of the school year in light of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Though students took no issue with praise of medical workers, believing them to be well-intentioned, they did find the praise of police officers troubling. Many criticised the school for being hypocritical in its stance of neutrality — especially senior students, who were told not to partake in political activities on campus, such as wearing black masks or putting up Lennon Walls. The general response was upset at the school’s violation of their own supposed policy, an infringement of the neutrality the school was so eager to enforce. Many also criticised the school’s support of the police force to be tone-deaf, given police misconduct that took place during the protests. 

“Every academic institution has the duty to be politically neutral and to encourage its students to share their opinions as they please without violating the peace, safety, and democratic rights of other people in the school. RCHK is not exempt from this duty in any way, shape, or form,” one student noted. 

Another student questioned the intentions of the post and what it was meant to represent: “In the case where it was an unintentional propagation of pro-police views, would it be fair if the communications team ‘censored’ a group of students by telling them not to thank the police? Is it a sufficient argument that the cards mentioning the police were representative of the entire secondary student body? Was it somewhat clear that they came from a small group of students?”

Students who emailed complaints to Brown received a response from him shortly, where he explained that “several students created the cards and videos on their own to show support and gratitude for first responders, including the police, during the COVID pandemic.” Brown later stated in the email, “unfortunately, some people have made the leap to this being a political statement, which in fact it is not. It is a statement of compassion and gratitude to all who have risked their health to safeguard the health of others during COVID.” Brown also mentioned that the video was to be taken down immediately and requested concerned students to share the email or contact him personally should anyone wish to comment further.

The response shed light on the other side of the controversy, and though students understood the intentions stated by Brown, most were still dismayed by a lack of apology and awareness. The political implications may have been unintentional, some argued, but they were still there. In the hours following the video being taken down, word of the video only continued to spread, particularly on social media sites like Instagram. Many students commented on the situation and shared updates with each other, while others took a more satirical route and produced memes in response to the situation. 

On the same day, a petition involving a public letter to RCHK Leadership began circulating around social media. “We are a group of current students and alumni deeply troubled by the message this video sent to the public,” it opens, later going on to state that “the anti-extradition demonstrations and the trajectory of the COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong are deeply entwined.”

“We refuse to have our legitimate concerns diminished this way and wish to emphasise that, in fact, it was political. We believe his reaction was insensitive at best and capable of inflicting further pain on so many of us at worst,” the letter continues. Led by a group of Year 13 students and alumni called the RCHK Democracy Concern Group, the petition was quick to spread all over social media. At the time of writing, the letter had garnered 332 signatures.

In the days that followed, dissatisfaction continued to arise. Many social media pages were created in response to the controversy — some with the intent to inform, while others were more vocal in their criticisms. Concurrently, the political landscape in Hong Kong began shifting drastically, triggered by talks and plans regarding the National Security Law.

On the morning of May 25th, the public letter by the RCHK Democracy Group was sent to members of RCHK’s senior leadership team, including secondary principal Ms Natasha Williams, secondary vice-principals Ms Jess Davey-Peel, Ms Brandy Stern, and Mr Geoff Wheeler, as well as RCHK principal Dr Harry Brown. 

A response came soon after, with Brown acknowledging the increasing political tensions in Hong Kong and its potential implications, though emphasising that the school’s current priority is transitioning students back to school. Brown also pointed out to members of the RCHK Democracy Group that the school has seen “comments that are at best insensitive or, at the worst, racist.” Brown later clarified with the Truth that the “postings forwarded to [them]” were ones “people felt were racist.”

The RCHK Democracy Concern Group was quick to respond on social media; though they acknowledged that RCHK’s current priority is transitioning students to school, they also noted that they were “exasperated by how quick Brown is to accuse some of [them] for being ‘at best insensitive’ or ‘at the worst, racist’ on social media,” clarifying that though others outside the group have expressed opinions, those expressed by the group had not been racist. The group also argued that the scrutiny on Brown was justified, given his power within RCHK and the ESF community and the current context of Hong Kong’s political situation.

However, Williams noted, in a later statement: “In addition to the emails that [Brown] received objecting to the Facebook post, he also received many emails from a group of students calling themselves the 'silent majority.' They expressed concern that the school and in particular, Dr. Brown had been pulled into this debate. They noted that they did not want to publicly speak out through fear of reprisal.”

The RCHK Truth reached out to Brown towards the end of May. In his statement, he said: “I believed then as I do now, that the intent of the students was entirely altruistic. They were "thank you" cards to these organizations and those who serve in them on behalf of our community [...] Unfortunately, it did not occur to us that the police would be singled out from the group of other COVID-19 first responders because of the controversies surrounding the civil unrest in Hong Kong. The failure to foresee the potential for this posting to be perceived by some as a political statement, as opposed to an acknowledgment for service during the pandemic, rests with me as principal.”

Regarding next steps, he further elaborated: “Some alumni have contacted me with an offer to work with the school on ideas they have for student wellbeing and what they view as an education suited for Hong Kong's future. I am looking forward to reading the details of their proposal.” Brown has also invited dialogue with existing RCHK students.

Since this controversy arose, Hong Kong’s politics has only gotten more dire. With the advancement of the National Anthem Bill and the National Security Law, the implications they hold, both social and economic, have been made more evident than ever. Protests were rampant on May 27th, a mere two days after the school’s response, and international action by foreign governments has been prompted — most notably from the United States. The resurgence of the #BlackLivesMatter movement in the United States also acts parallel to the resurgence of anti-police mindsets, undoubtedly stressing the importance of politics in this moment of time.