Debate on Hong Kong independence is possible, as long as it’s rational and respectful
Ronald Ng says there is no conflict between upholding our freedom of speech and staying true to our tradition of honouring our teachers and authority figures. In fact, an open, dispassionate discussion will have many benefits
The pursuit of freedom of speech and faith in the scientific method of inquiry were born in the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th century. Those ideas allowed Europe to break free of the intellectually suffocating power of the church. The rallying calls of the time were Voltaire’s statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, and the motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in verba, or “take nobody’s word for it”. These calls broke the shackles the church had on the intellectual and scientific developments in Europe and, over time, led to the development of the concept of human rights.
While those ideas were taking hold in Europe, in China, the Confucian notion of respect for the teacher was the norm. In Asian societies today that have been shaped by both Western modernity and Confucian thinking, there is a constant tension between obeying one’s teachers and, by extension, all authority, and exercising the right to speak up and question authorities.
As children, we tend to listen to our elders. But, in order for innovation and advancement to take place in society, we also need to question and challenge long-held ideas which might be wrong scientifically, or inappropriate for a different age.
Is it possible to act according to the spirit of “freedom of speech” and “Nullius in verba” while at the same time upholding the Confucian precept of honouring the teacher? Yes, I would say, if that freedom is exercised with dignity and decorum, and with due respect to the teachers and authorities, without the use of foul language, or violence.