No Forbidden Zones in Reading (Lee Yee)
German philosopher Hegel said, “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”
In April 1979, the post-Cultural Revolution era of China, the first article of the first issue of Beijing-based literary magazine, Dushu [meaning “Reading” in Chinese]," shook up the Chinese literary world. The article, titled “No Forbidden Zones in Reading”, was penned by Li Honglin. At the time, the CCP had not yet emerged from the darkness of the Cultural Revolution. What was it like in the Cultural Revolution? Except for masterpieces by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and a small fraction of practical books, all books were banned, and all libraries were closed. The Cultural Revolution ended in 1976, and 2 years later in 1978, the National Publishing Bureau decided to allow 35 books to be “unbanned”. An interlude: When the ban was first lifted, there was no paper on which to print the books because the person with authority over paper was Wang Dongxing, a long-term personal security of Mao’s, who would only give authorization to print Mao. The access to use paper to print books other than Mao was a procedural issue. The Cultural Revolution was already on its way to be overturned. The door to printing these books was opened only after several hang-ups.
“No Forbidden Zones in Reading” in the first issue of Dushu raised a question of common sense: Do citizens have the freedom to read? “We have not enacted laws that restrict people’s freedom of reading. Instead, our Constitution stipulates that people have the freedom of speech and publication, as well as the freedom to engage in cultural activities. Reading ought to be a cultural activity,” argued Li. It was not even about the freedom of speech, but simply reading. Yet this common sense would appear as a subversion of the paralyzing rigid ideas formulated during the Cultural Revolution, like a tossed stone that raises a thousand ripples. Dushu’s editorial department received a large number of objections: first, that there would be no gatekeeper and mentally immature minors would be influenced by trashy literature; second, that with the opening of the Pandora box, feudalism, capitalism and revisionism would now occupy our cultural stage. The article also aroused waves of debates within the CCP. Hu Yaobang, then Minister of Central Propaganda, transferred and appointed Li Honglin as the Deputy Director of the Theory Bureau in his department. A colleague asked him directly, “Can primary school students read Jin Pin Mei [also known in English as The Plum in the Golden Vase, a Chinese novel of manners composed in late Ming dynasty with explicit depiction of sexuality]?”
“All Four Doors of the Library Should be Open” was published in the second issue of Dushu, as an extension to “No Forbidden Zones in Reading”. The author was Fan Yuming, but was really Zeng Yansiu, president of the People’s Publishing House.
In the old days, there was a shorthand for the three Chinese characters for “library”: “book” within a “mouth”. The four sides of the book are all wide open, meaning that all the shackles of the banned books are released. “No Forbidden Zones in Reading” explains this on a theoretical level: the people have the freedom to read; “All Four Doors of the Library Should be Open” states that other than special collection books, all other books should be available for the public to loan.
The controversy caused by “No Forbidden Zones in Reading” lasted 2 years, and in April 1981, at the second anniversary of Dushu, Director of the Publishing Bureau, Chen Hanbo, penned an article that reiterated that there are “No Forbidden Zones in Reading”, and that was targeting an “unprecedented ban on books that did happen”.
Books are records of human wisdom, including strange, boring, vulgar thoughts, which are all valuable as long as they remain. After Emperor Qin Shihuang burned the books, he buried the scholars. In history, the ban on books and literary crimes have never ceased.
Engraved on the entrance to Dachau concentration camp in Germany, a famous poem cautions: When a regime begins to burn books, if it is not stopped, they will turn to burn people; when a regime begins to silent words, if it is not stopped, they will turn to silent the person. At the exit, a famous admonishment: When the world forgets these things, they will continue to happen.
Heine, a German poet of the 19th century, came up with “burning books and burning people”. There was a line before this: This is just foreplay.
Yes, all burning and banning of books are just foreplay. Next comes the literary crimes, and then “burning people”.
I started working at a publishing house with a high school degree at 18, and lived my entire life in a pile of books. 42 years ago, when I read “No Forbidden Zones in Reading” in Dushu, I thought that banned books were a thing of the past. Half a century since and here we are, encountering the exact same thing in the freest zone for reading in the past century in the place which enlightened Sun Yat-sen and the rest of modern intellectuals, a place called Hong Kong.
Oh, Hegel’s words are the most genuine.
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過7萬的網紅CatGirl貓女孩,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Every child with SEN is a gift, you are amazing as the way you are ? 有特殊學習需要的小朋友並不是異類,你們擁有別人沒有的潛能,只要相信自己,一定能夠成大器!! 好多成功人士也是有 SEN 的, 即刻去睇睇下邊個有 SEN啦~ ...
what is sen students 在 盧斯達 Facebook 的最佳解答
New York Times 第三擊
【China’s Hong Kong Policy Is Perverse. It Always Has Been.】
By Lewis Lau Yiu-man
HONG KONG — Beijing says it wants to safeguard “one country, two systems,” the principle that supposedly guarantees Hong Kong’s semiautonomy from the mainland. In reality it is weaponizing the policy to crush the city’s freedoms.
On Thursday, the Chinese government announced a plan to pass national security laws for Hong Kong. It has long been after something like this, though previously it expected the local authorities to do the job. Not this time. This law would be ratified in Beijing — at worst, as soon as next week.
This sinister move caps several weeks of mounting acts of repression in Hong Kong, in almost all spheres of public life — politics, law, education, the media.
Last week, students sitting for a university-entrance history exam were asked if they agreed with this statement: “Japan did more good than harm to China in the period of 1900-45.” The Hong Kong Education Bureau promptly complained that the question was “leading” and asked that it be stricken from the exam, even though some students had already answered it.
The Education Bureau also claimed that the question “seriously hurt the feelings and dignity of the Chinese people who suffered great pain during the Japanese invasion of China.” For many traditional Chinese patriots there is simply no way the Japanese could have brought any benefit whatsoever to China; to merely ask that question is to somehow prettify the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.
Never mind that the exam referred to the years between 1900 and 1945, rather than solely to the war. And never mind that there is ample historical evidence showing that Japan’s vast influence on China during that period also served China well in some ways. Sun Yat-sen, the most famous early leader of post-imperial modern China; major actors in China’s socialist movement; even Lu Xun, arguably the greatest writer in modern Chinese literature, were all inspired or shaped to a certain extent by contact with Japan.
More than anything, questions such as this one have been a fixture of history exams in Hong Kong. I studied history at university, and I remember this exam question from 2006: “Some people think Emperor Wen of Sui (541-604) did more harm than good. Do you agree with that?”
Then this week pro-Beijing lawmakers hijacked the election for chairperson of a committee of Hong Kong’s legislative council, calling in security guards to control the scene, and placed at the committee’s head a pro-establishment legislator accused of abuse of power.
“Headliner,” a satirical show of the public broadcaster RTHK, was canceled after Hong Kong authorities complained that it denigrated the Hong Kong police.
And the government, even as it is relaxing various social-distancing rules to fend off Covid-19, just extended restrictions on group gatherings to June 4 — the anniversary of the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square. The commemorative protest vigil that has been held that day every year may not take place for the first time in three decades. (It occurred even during the SARS outbreak of 2002-03.)
Next week, Hong Kongers face another blatant effort by Beijing to instill in them patriotism for China and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party: The local Legislature will consider a bill that would criminalize the misuse of China’s national anthem or insults toward it. And, of course, there is the national security legislation.
The Chinese Communist Party is ambitious, and it is impatient. It doesn’t just want to control Hong Kong; it wants to remodel the minds and souls of the Hong Kong people.
Chinese state media said of the history exam controversy that it was an occasion for Hong Kong to “surgically detoxify” its education system so as to make it “compatible” with “one country, two systems.” What they really were calling for is a radical change of the status quo.
“One country, two systems” is designed, in theory, to safeguard the fundamental rights of Hong Kong’s people. In fact, our rights are gradually being taken away in the name of safeguarding “one country, two systems” — Beijing’s version of it. The policy isn’t dead so much as it is perverse. Which it always has been.
“One country, two systems” was a ploy from the outset, a tactic for China to buy time, the better to absorb Hong Kong sooner or later. Preferably sooner, it seems.
what is sen students 在 無待堂 Facebook 的最佳解答
New York Times 第三擊
【China’s Hong Kong Policy Is Perverse. It Always Has Been.】
By Lewis Lau Yiu-man
HONG KONG — Beijing says it wants to safeguard “one country, two systems,” the principle that supposedly guarantees Hong Kong’s semiautonomy from the mainland. In reality it is weaponizing the policy to crush the city’s freedoms.
On Thursday, the Chinese government announced a plan to pass national security laws for Hong Kong. It has long been after something like this, though previously it expected the local authorities to do the job. Not this time. This law would be ratified in Beijing — at worst, as soon as next week.
This sinister move caps several weeks of mounting acts of repression in Hong Kong, in almost all spheres of public life — politics, law, education, the media.
Last week, students sitting for a university-entrance history exam were asked if they agreed with this statement: “Japan did more good than harm to China in the period of 1900-45.” The Hong Kong Education Bureau promptly complained that the question was “leading” and asked that it be stricken from the exam, even though some students had already answered it.
The Education Bureau also claimed that the question “seriously hurt the feelings and dignity of the Chinese people who suffered great pain during the Japanese invasion of China.” For many traditional Chinese patriots there is simply no way the Japanese could have brought any benefit whatsoever to China; to merely ask that question is to somehow prettify the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.
Never mind that the exam referred to the years between 1900 and 1945, rather than solely to the war. And never mind that there is ample historical evidence showing that Japan’s vast influence on China during that period also served China well in some ways. Sun Yat-sen, the most famous early leader of post-imperial modern China; major actors in China’s socialist movement; even Lu Xun, arguably the greatest writer in modern Chinese literature, were all inspired or shaped to a certain extent by contact with Japan.
More than anything, questions such as this one have been a fixture of history exams in Hong Kong. I studied history at university, and I remember this exam question from 2006: “Some people think Emperor Wen of Sui (541-604) did more harm than good. Do you agree with that?”
Then this week pro-Beijing lawmakers hijacked the election for chairperson of a committee of Hong Kong’s legislative council, calling in security guards to control the scene, and placed at the committee’s head a pro-establishment legislator accused of abuse of power.
“Headliner,” a satirical show of the public broadcaster RTHK, was canceled after Hong Kong authorities complained that it denigrated the Hong Kong police.
And the government, even as it is relaxing various social-distancing rules to fend off Covid-19, just extended restrictions on group gatherings to June 4 — the anniversary of the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square. The commemorative protest vigil that has been held that day every year may not take place for the first time in three decades. (It occurred even during the SARS outbreak of 2002-03.)
Next week, Hong Kongers face another blatant effort by Beijing to instill in them patriotism for China and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party: The local Legislature will consider a bill that would criminalize the misuse of China’s national anthem or insults toward it. And, of course, there is the national security legislation.
The Chinese Communist Party is ambitious, and it is impatient. It doesn’t just want to control Hong Kong; it wants to remodel the minds and souls of the Hong Kong people.
Chinese state media said of the history exam controversy that it was an occasion for Hong Kong to “surgically detoxify” its education system so as to make it “compatible” with “one country, two systems.” What they really were calling for is a radical change of the status quo.
“One country, two systems” is designed, in theory, to safeguard the fundamental rights of Hong Kong’s people. In fact, our rights are gradually being taken away in the name of safeguarding “one country, two systems” — Beijing’s version of it. The policy isn’t dead so much as it is perverse. Which it always has been.
“One country, two systems” was a ploy from the outset, a tactic for China to buy time, the better to absorb Hong Kong sooner or later. Preferably sooner, it seems.
what is sen students 在 CatGirl貓女孩 Youtube 的最佳解答
Every child with SEN is a gift, you are amazing as the way you are ? 有特殊學習需要的小朋友並不是異類,你們擁有別人沒有的潛能,只要相信自己,一定能夠成大器!!
好多成功人士也是有 SEN 的, 即刻去睇睇下邊個有 SEN啦~
更多成功人士有 SEN 的名單:
http://www.sap.edu.hk/CustomPage/36/sen_more.html
有任何問題都歡迎發問!
----------------------------------------------------------
Presenter:
CatGirl
Editor:
CarGirl & Ken
Backgroud Music:
Windows Rolled Down
Reference Video:
-TVB Pearl The Pearl Report - Students with Special Education Needs in Hong Kong
-Inclusive Learning- Everyone's In - Overview
----------------------------------------------------------
有問題歡迎留言發問!
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/hkcatgirl
Follow my Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CatGirl-%E8%B2%93%E5%A5%B3%E5%AD%A9-261290303914565/
Subscribe my Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/CatGirl-%E8%B2%93%E5%A5%B3%E5%AD%A9