殖民地子民的祖國被「陌生化」，國民教育要培養對祖國認同的民族意識和文化自豪感。
對一個以民意和多數人的意願(majority will)為施政基礎的「共識政府」(government by
consen- sus)，公共行政和公共管理的首要工作就是要說服公眾(public
administration is public persuasion)。一個回歸祖國的「後殖民城市」要推行國民教育，是何等順理成章，甚至理直氣壯的事情！倘若主事者給人理屈詞窮的印象，那就難免叫人懷疑他詮釋議題和制定議程的論述能力(discursive
power)不足，讓反對者有機可乘，利用香港人的恐共情結來大做文章。
其實，有關國民教育討論的關鍵詞不應該是「洗腦」而是「去殖民化」(decoloniza- tion)。對於所謂「後殖民人」(Post-Colonial
people)來說，國民教育重要，因為殖民地子民不會隨著主權的轉移就自然而然地成為國家的公民。
在漫長的殖民統治下，殖民地子民的祖國被「陌生化」和「他者化」。國民教育要致力培養的，就是民眾對祖國認同的民族意識(national consciousness)，以及對自身文化的自豪感(cultural pride)。這兩個教育目標，不可能靠指鹿為馬和隱惡揚善的教育手段來達致。然而我們反對的，應該是指鹿為馬和隱惡揚善而非國民教育，為何國民教育在近期的討論彷彿變成非帶著鄙夷與輕蔑就不能說出口的髒字眼(dirty
word)？
至於「殖民地」三個字，更以異常顯眼的方式在一切有關的討論中「缺席」，即英文所說的「conspicuous by its absence」。它就是那隻「房間裏的大象」(the
elephant in the room)，明明是人人都看見的龐然大物，卻沒有人願意去談論。很明顯，回歸十五年之後，香港人對於他們被英國統治的殖民歷史，仍然處於一種集體的否認狀態之中(in
collective denial)。
馬克思學者葛蘭西(Antonio
Gramsci)認為，教育是殖民者以懷柔方式管治的主要手段。殖民者透過教什麼和怎麼教，將被殖民者變成順民，在得到他們的同意甚至感激下對他們進行支配；葛蘭西稱之為「domination
by consent」。
國民教育這場災難的種子，其實在特區政府推行母語教學遭到滑鐵盧時已經播下。香港學生嚴重缺乏個性、文化自信和民族自尊，正因為他們長久以來被迫使用一種他們無法駕馭的殖民者語言來學習、認識自我和認識世界。這種殖民者語言的「他者性」使他們無法與他們處身的社會、學習環境和他們自身建立親密、私人的關係。這個學習的障礙一日不清除，香港學生仍然只會在教室內噤若寒蟬、只懂埋首抄錄教師的一言一語，還奢談甚麼批判性思維與競爭力？
特區政府自回歸後對香港教育的諸多改革，特別是教學語言的改革(linguistic change)，從來都吃力不討好。本來任何挑戰現狀和既得利益的改革建議遭到反對是正常的，但各界對教育改革反對之激烈及一致，卻反映了英國撤出香港逾十年，香港作為一個後殖民社會（post-colonial
society）仍然深受一種新殖民主義（Neocolonialism）意識形態的影響。
東方學的鼻祖薩伊德（Edward Said）認為，知識與權力構成帝國主義者在殖民地統治的不可分割的雙重基礎。帝國主義者對知識的界定、壟斷和分配，是他們能夠在殖民地實施有效管治的關鍵。英國統治香港一百五十年，不僅制定了為世人稱許的自由經濟體系和法治制度，還成功建立了一套牢不可破的文化價值等級體系。在這個等級體系內佔據最高層的是英文——英文重要，因為它是殖民地主人的語言。作為一種施展權力、實施控制和彰顯精英身份的工具，英文在英國管治下的香港根本無可取代。
從這個意義上來說，香港的學生家長千方百計要學生讀英文中學或者入英文班，校長和辦學團體挖空心思要保住英文中學的地位，都可視之為帝國主義產生的文化結果。英文是一種「超級語言」（super language），甚至語言中的王者（king of languages），不再是殖民者的幻想，而是被視為理所當然的傳統智慧，甚至不辯自明的常識。帝國主義者的殖民統治改變殖民地的語言生態（linguistic
ecology），在香港再次得到明證。
Perry
Lam (林沛理) is getting strange. I used to like his
articles but ever since he showed his support for CY Leung in his election seven
months ago, I have found it increasingly difficult to follow his writings in《亞洲週刊 》. I started by questioning
myself if my political views clouded my judgement. But after careful
introspection, I am sure that the problem is not mine. In this recent article,
I firmly believe he has misunderstood the people of Hong Kong. He has tried to establish
the fact that the British colonial government has indoctrinated her subjects
with anti-communistic inclination. As a grown-up in Hong Kong, I consider this
assumption to be wrong. The curriculum may
de-emphasize and neglected certain parts of modern history, the government never
blatantly manipulated the facts to the point of falsehood. The fear of communism in China is not the lack of
understanding. Rather, it is due to the better knowledge of its disastrous
policies, power struggles and corruption.
The
colonial history is definitely an important part of what Hong Kong is. The deliberate attempt
to remove this part of history is to undermine what made Hong Kong special. I sense a tint of
antagonism in his articles about Hong Kong’s colonial past. The
unabated fear of China is partly contributed by
the recurrent exposé of corruption and unconcealed abuse of power. The
apprehension is further accentuated because of the heavy-handed suppression of
dissident voices by the communist government.
“母語教學”had proved failed and it needs a series of
‘adjustment’to rectify the mistake. The students’ language proficiencies under
the program were disappointing in both English and Chinese. Mr. Lam tries to
underscore the importance of mother tongue and brands English as a colonial
heritage. The use of the historical context of English for his justification in
the current time frame is flimsy and his neglect of modern role of English language
is palpable. As an international city, Hong Kong should emphasize English language which has evolved into a global language for trade and other forms
of international exchange. Wouldn’t that happen in China as well? Edward Said’s
perspective is not directly applicable to Hong Kong (Please read Orientalism
by Edward Said if anyone feels interested). Mr. Lam jammed his articles with
political jargon and he seems to lose his way in his tenuous argument based on
them.
He
misses the theme of the movement against “ 國民教育”entirely, it is never about its necessity but its
present form. The government deliberately befuddles these two issues and it
cannot quite explain the haste to implement the course when it is not ready (no
teaching materials, guidelines yet to be ascertained and no clear marking
schemes).