教協之前做了一份「通識教育科的改動」問卷調查，是於去年12月1日至12月8日進行的。教協稱向中學通識科教師發出電郵問卷，共收回502個有效回覆，當中包括99位通識科主任、289位以通識為主科的教師。指有九成教師稱改革屬政治打壓，罔顧學生利益。
筆者相信絕大多數人都知道教協的政治立場是反對中國政府的，這是客觀的事實。 而通識科的老師，他們以前在大學期間是讀社會人文科，其政治理論多數是攻擊中國的，至少不認同中國，因此，絕大多數的通識科老師都是反對中國政府的。 這與前線很多老師以及以及眾多的學生的反映相一致。
教協為了阻止港府改革通識科，而做了上述調查，得出的結論可想而知，他們只想要求教育局撤回改革方案。
教協基本上明目張膽地反對中國政府，這由他們的文宣可以清楚地看到這一點，他們文宣的論點跟美國以及其他西方國家攻擊中國的論點一樣，沒有任何獨立思考的能力，基本上是鸚鵡學舌式的奴才。他們對歐洲美國嚴重的種族歧視、對美國英國非法地發動戰爭至數十萬計平民死亡、在美洲以及太平洋島上進行種族滅絕 、美國以及英國的警暴等等，完全不作任何批評。通識科教師跟教協的論調一模一樣，乃同道中人，他們利用通識科這個平台有系統地對青少年學生進行反中洗腦教育。 現在教育局的改革令到他們這個平台的功能大部分被廢除，因此，他們反對改革通識教育，這是非常正常的。
教協反對將政治凌駕教育，其實將政治凌駕教育的正是教協黃師。他們利用通識科無指定教材，在課堂上宣揚個人反中政治理念和立場，甚至向學生灌輸港獨，導致無數學生被反中洗腦而走入歧途。更有通識科教師公然在網上詛咒「黑警死全家」，在各界譴責之下才不得不辭去考評局通識教育科目委員會主席職務。
通識教育推行10年以來，受 反中洗腦教育影響學生達數十萬，跨越「90後」和「00後」兩代人，這些青年學生都是受害者。 因此通識教育必須進行改革， 否則，香港的青年被反中洗腦，以為內地貧窮落後、黑暗、民不聊生、水深火熱.... ，與中國大陸對抗，損人不利己。他們事實上是被錯誤的思想洗了腦，因此做出非理性的暴力行為。如果通識科反中洗腦教育不被制止，香港將會沒有前途。因此，教育局的通識改革行出了正確的一步， 教協的反對實屬無理取鬧。將來時機成熟，應該取消這一科，可以保留所有中學生須去內地實地考察交流的這個實踐科目，讓他們親自去看看內地的社會發展情況，以揭穿香港反中傳媒的陰暗文宣。
盧 授 建築師
香港建設專業聯會理事
香港建設專業聯會
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
<Trump’s götterdämmerung
特朗普的災難性結束>
Jan, 2021
The writer of this article is Ian Buruma, he is the author, most recently, of The <Churchill Complex: The Curse of Being Special, From Winston and FDR to Trump and Brexit>. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2021. In this article, he said Trump is not a “conventional politician, he is more like a cult leader, a charismatic agitator who promised his followers salvation from the wicked world of.....", quite interesting, you may see it as follows.
Anyone who was surprised by the mayhem in Washington, DC, has not been paying attention for the last four years. The grotesque scenes around the Capitol on January 6 were indeed shocking: wild-eyed thugs with neo-Nazi flags and Trump banners smashing their way into the House of Representatives and the Senate, while mobs roared “USA” and “Stop the Steal” and others took selfies to show their moment of glory to their grandchildren one day.
But the most disgusting spectacle of all was that of Trump himself inciting his frenzied followers to march on the Capitol to overturn the election and fight the “evil” enemies who had supposedly robbed him of his victory.
It was shocking, but surprising. Anyone could have seen this coming from that moment in 2016, during the second presidential debate, when Trump was asked whether he would accept the result of the coming election. He replied that this would depend on the result. In other words, he would accept only his own victory. Any other outcome would be illegitimate. It was clear then that he would not abide by the basic rules of liberal democracy.
That was not the only evidence: The free press were “enemies of the people,” Hillary Clinton, his political opponent, should be “locked up”, immigrants were rapists and drug dealers, and so on. As president, Trump condoned, and even encouraged, violent extremists who declared war on blacks and Jews (“Jews will not replace us!” they chanted in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017).
Nonetheless, Republican Party leaders, including those who distanced themselves from the president at the very last minute, supported him, flattered his colossal ego and protected him against all efforts to temper his outlandish, and possibly illegal behaviour. They did not do so for love of Trump. But as long as he gave them what they wanted, deregulation, lower taxes for the very rich, and the swift appointment of far-right judges, he could do as he pleased.
Some Republicans would admit that Trump was, well, not a “conventional politician”. That is certainly true. Trump is more like a cult leader, a charismatic agitator who promised his followers salvation from the wicked world of violent and decadent cities, liberal elites, blacks, gays, immigrants, and other polluting aliens in the body politic. Many people voted for Trump because they believed in him more as a messiah than as a politician.
The big question now is whether a cult can last once the leader is out of power. Can Trumpism survive for long without Trump? He still owns much of the Republican Party. And he will try to preserve his influence through social media. He might even build his own little media empire. But will this be enough? Will it last?
Trumpism may survive under a different leader. This is what a politician like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is hoping. His attempt to pander to Trump’s voter base by sabotaging President-elect Joe Biden’s victory is a play for a future presidential run. But Cruz lacks the vulgar charisma of Trump. He is a highly-educated cynic, a ruthless political operator, but not someone who can easily inspire the masses.
The future of Trumpism also hinges on a long-debated philosophical question. Which is the greater driver of history: great leaders or socioeconomic conditions? Like Hitler, Trump is often seen, especially by people on the left, as a symptom, rather than the cause, of a social pathology.
There is something to be said for this view. Trump has shrewdly exploited problems and resentments that were there long before he entered politics: the widening gulf between rich and poor, fear of immigrants, loathing of Islam, the increasing dominance of big cities and finance over impoverished de-industrialised and rural areas, hatred of racial minorities and so on.
These issues have been used, with more or less success, by other contemporary demagogues as well. But, to succeed, such political operators still need to project a certain magnetism, a quality that more conventional politicians often underestimate at their peril.
Looks and demeanor play an important part in this. It is no mere coincidence that quite a few populist leaders sport such weird hairdos, former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s painted implants, Trump’s platinum comb-over, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s carefully calculated blond mess. The hair, like Hitler’s moustache, is part of their “brand”. A born demagogue knows how to stand out.
More than most of his colleagues in the demagogue business, Trump is a creature of show business. His great success was not in real estate; he was in fact a terrible businessman, blundering from one failure to another. What made him was a television show. That is what boosted his brand, which he has used with a truly mammoth talent for self-promotion. Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, or Marco Rubio — all Republican senators with ambitions to follow in Trump’s footsteps — don’t even come close.
The rage, resentments, and economic problems that Trump exploited will not go away, of course. And he has made the social and political ills of America far worse. The symptoms will remain, but perhaps without a man with the malevolent genius to inflame them.
And Trump’s followers will lose their messiah. Without Trump’s bizarre but effective grip on the party, Republicans may well face a period of vicious infighting, which could conceivably tear their party apart. If so, they richly deserve it.
K. Y. Yip 葉啟賢 Engineer
HKFDP
