駐港自由記者:香港的高等教育課程被美國組織操控

Editor‘s note: Raphael Blet is a freelance journalist based in Hong Kong。 The article reflects the author’s opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN。

  編者按:拉斐爾·波萊特(Raphael Blet)是一名駐港自由記者。本文僅代表作者觀點,不代表本臺觀點。

  Whenever journalists or scholars make mention of America‘s influence in Hong Kong, they would often be labelled as “pro-government,” “pro-Beijing” or even “pro-Communist。” 

  每當記者或學者提及美國對香港的影響時,他們往往會被貼上“親政府”、“親北京”、甚至是“親共產黨”的標籤。

  Many of them are politically neutral; their only quest being that of the truth。 Sadly, the current one-sided narrative puts these truth seekers in a constant fear of being wrongfully labelled for providing a fact。 I am sure that many international journalists and scholars would like to look further into how America influences Hong Kong, but they know that the chances of such stories being published in the mainstream are small。 

  他們中的許多人在政治上是中立的;唯一的追求就是真相。不幸的是,當前片面的聲音令這些尋求真相的人陷入持久的恐慌之中:提供真相,就有可能被錯誤地貼上標籤。我相信許多國際記者和學者都想進一步瞭解美國對香港的影響,但他們知道,此類內容在主流媒體上獲得發表的機會相當渺茫。

  It seems there is now a de facto rules that whenever you talk about Chinese mainland‘s influence over Hong Kong, you tell the factual truth。 When you talk about America’s influence over the territory, however, you disseminate “fake news,” “state propaganda” and “conspiracies。”

  現在似乎形成了一個事實上的規則:只要談論內地對香港施加影響,那就一定是真相。然而,當談及美國對香港的影響時,那就是在散佈“假新聞”、傳遞“官方宣傳口徑”、宣揚“陰謀論”。

  As journalists, our duty is to analyze all facts。 Fairness and truthfulness are key components of journalistic ethics。 

  作為記者,我們的職責是分析所有事實。但公正與真實是新聞工作者職業道德的關鍵所在。

  Some media outlets did release articles about the sources of America‘s influence over Hong Kong but many of them are either unpersuasive or regurgitating facts we are already aware of。 

  有些媒體確實刊發了一些關於美國對香港的影響力的來源的文章,但其中一些文章要麼缺乏說服力,要麼是在不斷重複我們已經知道的事實。

  There are plenty of other facts that have so far been unexplored or under-reported, and doing so would certainly help audiences to get a better picture of how America influences Hong Kong。 

  到目前為止,還有許多其他的事實沒有被發掘或是在報導上並不充分,因此在這方面下功夫肯定能幫助觀眾更好地瞭解美國是如何影響香港的。

  American influence over Hong Kong is not facilitated entirely through the NED, Embassies or Congress。 This is a common misconception。 The three of them are all too detached from the local population to have a direct influence。 

  美國對香港的影響力並不完全是通過國家民主基金會、大使館或國會來實現的。這是一個普遍的誤解。上述三方同香港民眾相距甚遠,很難施加直接影響。

  Instead, analysts should look into tertiary education if they really want to understand the United-States‘ influence over Hong Kong, Chinese mainland and Asia。 

  如果真想深入瞭解美國對香港、中國內地和亞洲的影響力,分析家們應當將目光轉向香港的高等教育。

  Hong Kong is home to many organizations, with a pursuit to enhance business and academic cooperation between America and Chinese mainland。

  許多致力於加強美國和中國內地之間商務與學術合作的組織都把香港作為總部。

  The fact is that some of these organizations are more than just NGOs。 They are de facto supervisors of Hong Kong‘s university curriculum。 

  事實上,他們中有一些並不僅僅是非政府組織。他們實際上是香港大學課程的監督方。

  Let‘s take the Hong Kong America Center as an example。 I’m sure this organization is unknown to many, but yet it plays an important role in the local community。 

  以(香港中文大學)港美中心為例,我相信很多人都不知道這個組織的存在,但它在當地社區卻扮演著重要角色。

  Established 25 years ago, the Hong Kong America Center defines itself as enhancing “Cross Cultural Understanding Between Chinese and Americans over the Bridge of Hong Kong。” 

  港美中心成立於25年前,美其名曰“以香港作橋樑, 推動港美學術交流”。

  When looking at the list of board members, you quickly understand that it is more than a facilitator of cross-cultural exchanges。 Board members include presidents of all of Hong Kong‘s universities as well as influential figures, some of whom are former U.S。 diplomatic service members。 

  只要看一眼該中心董事會成員名單,你很快就會明白它絕不僅僅是一個推動跨文化交流的組織。董事會成員包括香港所有大學的校長以及一些有影響力的人物,其中有些人是前美國外交官。

The main building of the University of Hong Kong, July 29, 2011。 /VCG Photo

  After looking for the physical address of these organizations, you find out that they are headquartered in the premises of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), putting them in a rather privileged position。 

  如果研究一下這些組織機構的地址,就會發現它們的總部位於香港中文大學(港中大)校內,可謂是盡享地利。

  But how are they influencing Hong Kong‘s tertiary education?

  但他們如何影響了香港的高等教育?

  Formed 25 years ago, the Hong Kong America Center started to gain influence in the early 2000s, when the State Department came to realize that most of Hong Kong‘s ethnic Chinese University heads studied in the U.S。 It was an opportunity for the American government to use their educational arm to persuade Hong Kong universities to shift from a British-style system to an American one: This is probably the worst mistake Hong Kong could do。

  成立於25年前的港美中心,在21世紀初開始獲得影響力。當時美國國務院意識到,香港大多數華裔校長都曾在美國留學。這是美國政府利用其教育機構說服香港大學從英式教育體系轉向美式教育體系的一個機會。這也許是香港犯下的最嚴重的錯誤。

  Unfortunately, this eventually happened in 2005, when it was decided that tertiary education in Hong Kong would switch from a three- to four-year curriculum in 2012, erasing a long legacy of British-style education with Chinese characteristics and replacing it with an American one。 The fact is that Hong Kong‘s tertiary education curriculum have been designed and supervised by the U.S。, with generous donations from local philanthropic figures。

  不幸的是,這種情況最終在2005年發生了。當時香港決定從2012年起將高等教育的課程從3年制改為4年制,抹去了具有中國特色的英式教育悠久遺產,代之於美式教育體系。借助於本地慈善人士的慷慨捐贈,香港的高等教育課程從此由美國所設計和監管既成事實。

  One million U.S。 dollars was donated by Mr。 Po Chung, a local business figure, philanthropist and educator, who — according to the Hong Kong America Center — “valued” American style liberal education and wanted to bring U.S。 experts to collaborate with Hong Kong scholars in designing the new curriculum。 Hong Kong scholars had very little say in this new program。 

  香港商界人士、慈善家和教育家鐘普洋先生捐贈了100萬美元。據港美中心說,鐘普洋先生“重視”美國式的博雅教育,並希望邀請美國專家同香港學者合作設計新課程。香港學者在這個新專案中幾乎沒有發言權。

  This was certainly a clever move by the American government, to export an education that failed at home and experiment in Hong Kong。 But it was certainly not welcomed by everyone。 

  把在國內失敗的教育體系輸出到香港並進行試驗,這無疑是美國政府的“聰明”之舉。但肯定不是每個人都歡迎它。

  What is this American curriculum all about and why it may play a part in the current issues facing young people?

  美式課程體系到底是什麼?,為什麼它可能在當下年輕人面臨的問題中發揮作用?

  The current American designed curriculum emphasizes so-called “whole person education” more commonly referred to as “liberal education。” In reality, this is forced academic shopping where students are obliged to take courses unrelated to their field of studies in pursuit of ideals dictated by a handful of American government-sponsored good thinkers, with no or little teaching experience but whose agenda is to impose unrealistic ideals upon the young generation。 

  目前由美國設計的課程強調所謂的“全人教育”,一般稱為“通識教育”。事實上,這是一種被逼無奈的學術“購物”,學生們被迫學習與他們的研究領域毫無關係的課程,研究由少數美國政府資助的 “優秀思想家”所主導的理念。而這些“思想家”往往沒有或只有極少的教學經驗,但他們的目的是把不切實際的理想強加給年輕一代。

  Hong Kong students are obliged to deviate from their major field of study and take courses unrelated to their discipline, many of which are aimed at impregnating American style teaching values。 

  香港學生不得不偏離自己的專業領域,選修與專業無關的課程,這其中的許多課程旨在灌輸美式教學價值觀。

  Students will end up getting a sense of purposelessness, lose passion and not know why they are at university。 A sense of purposelessness is one factor that leads people to commit suicide, according to specialists。 It could also lead others to take part in radical actions, such as violent protests for example。 

  學生最終會感到沒有目標,失去激情,不知道自己為什麼上大學。專家稱,無目的感是導致人們自殺的一大因素,它還可能導致一些人參與激進的行動,例如暴力抗議。

  I spoke to a handful of professors teaching these courses, and many despise this U.S。-style curriculum structure but few dare to speak publicly。 Those who spoke out against it were either implicitly warned or saw their contracts not being renewed。 

  我曾與教授這些課程的幾位教授交談過,很多人都鄙夷這種美式的課程結構,但很少有人敢於公開發聲。那些公開表示反對的人要麼受到了含蓄的警告,要麼發現自己的合同沒有被續簽。

In 2012, local scholar Victor Sit Fung-shuen was dismissed from Hong Kong Baptist University, on grounds of academic dishonesty。 Fung published the Hong Kong Blue Book of which one part claimed that U.S。 funding and influences were involved in Hong Kong‘s university curriculum。 

  2012年,香港浸會大學以學術欺詐為由,開除了本地學者薛鳳旋教授。薛教授主編了《香港藍皮書》,書中聲稱香港的大學課程受到了美國的資助和影響。

  CUHK representatives at the time complained about his “fictitious” allegations。 His book was subsequently withdrawn from shelves and he was quickly dismissed。

  港中大代表當時對他的“虛構”指控提出投訴。他的書隨後被下架,他本人也很快被解雇。

  Are such allegations of American influence really “fictitious?”

  但是,這些關於美國影響的指控真的是“虛構”的嗎?

  Facts speak for themselves。

  事實不言自明。