Preserver of Chinese culture
The executive committee of the Commission on Strategic Development is scheduled to hold its second meeting this afternoon. Among other matters, members are supposed to discuss Hong Kong's role in China's national integration as well as peaceful diplomacy, the national economy and social harmony.
Not surprisingly, Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat has described the topics as 'political indoctrination'.
In fact, the document sent to members is written in language reminiscent of a mainland bureaucrat. For example, it says 'long separation and ideological differences [have prevented] many Hong Kong people from fully understanding our country'. It is necessary, the paper says, for action to 'ensure that Hong Kong people are totally reunited with the motherland'. There is little attention on 'one country, two systems'.
One would have thought that the Basic Law precludes Hong Kong from taking any action on its own in foreign policy, except in trade and cultural exchange issues. Also, where national integration is concerned, the central government has made it clear that Taiwan policy is not within Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy.
But one proposal makes sense, though probably not in the way the document's drafters intended. Hong Kong does have a role in China's cultural revival.
In the past, the Kuomintang government claimed Taiwan was the true repository of Chinese culture and depicted itself as its guardian. This was especially true during the Cultural Revolution, when the mainland's Red Guards were wreaking havoc to carry out the Maoist injunction 'Down with the four olds' - old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits.
Taiwan then was proud of its Chinese heritage, from the treasures in the National Palace Museum to Taiwanese folk culture. Today, however, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party does not even acknowledge that Taiwan's inhabitants are Chinese. A de-sinocisation campaign has been going on, with the word 'China' being replaced by 'Taiwan' in the names of virtually all government publications and organisations.
Given this situation, there is a niche for Hong Kong. Even though Confucius is once again held up as a great sage, culture - and education - on the mainland are still considered political instruments. History teaching, for example, must be done in a politically correct manner, as the party showed last month when it shut down Bingdian (Freezing Point), a weekly supplement of the China Youth Daily, for an article on late 19th century events.
Its author Yuan Weishi , a professor at Zhongshan University, wrote that the textbook used in middle schools was selective in presenting the facts on the second opium war (1856-1860). He said textbooks in Hong Kong were much better because the presentation 'matches the historical reality and does not damage national interest'. Why, he wonders, could mainland historians not 'learn to do the same'?
The underlying message in mainland textbooks, Professor Yuan indicated, is 'the current Chinese culture is superior and unmatched' while 'outside culture is evil and corrodes the purity of the existing culture'. He deplored the influence of such history textbooks.
This suggests that one role Hong Kong can play - indeed is already playing, albeit unwittingly - is as the preserver of Chinese culture. Today, Hong Kong may well be the only Chinese society where Chinese history can be taught objectively, without a need to depict events to favour any party or government, including the Communist Party and the government in Beijing.
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator
