男女羞羞视频在线观看,国产精品黄色免费,麻豆91在线视频,美女被羞羞免费软件下载,国产的一级片,亚洲熟色妇,天天操夜夜摸,一区二区三区在线电影

Hypocrisy behind the recent 'racist textbook' controversy

Updated: 2014-06-23 07:33

By Jony Lam(HK Edition)

  Print Mail Large Medium  Small

After reading and re-reading the new general studies worksheet that went viral, I came to the conclusion that the "racial harmony" chapter is no sillier than any other chapter in the textbook. Or any other element of the curriculum for that matter. I for one would not take it seriously. In fact nobody but primary school students should be reading it and that is precisely why there is no need for suspicious adults to read anything Machiavellian into a child's world.

In the controversial exercise, Primary Three pupils are asked to complete word bubbles for five cartoon figures. A bubble next to a white man carried the words "I am [blank]. I am an English teacher", while the text next to a woman with darker skin reads, "I am [blank]. I am a domestic helper in Hong Kong". Choices for the blanks include British, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Chinese and Korean.

Some people find the exercise discriminatory and offensive. If anything, the exercise shows that the fill-in-the-blanks format has remained the same since I last encountered it two decades ago. Students are given six choices, must choose the appropriate response to fill the five blanks, and they must match the choices with the blanks as best as they can using all the cues available.

Returning to the "racial harmony" exercise, the statement that "I am Chinese. Shanghai is my home town" is a correct answer in the context of the exercise, but it certainly does not suggest Shanghai is the home town of all Chinese. The context also suggests "I am Indian. I study at an international school" to be the best match, not only because the associated cartoon figure looks, on the balance of probabilities, like an Indian, but also because other available choices correspond better to other blanks.

For adults the real issue here is beyond pedagogy. Race and ethnic relations exist not on paper, but in society. We could conjure up a textbook image of perfect harmony and equality between the races, but that would be a gross misrepresentation of reality.

A Filipina working in Hong Kong is more likely than not a domestic worker. This is a fact. It does not make the situation any less embarrassing to say that Filipinas account for only half the population of Hong Kong's domestic helpers, and the other half are Indonesians; or that Filipinos also work locally as drivers or club singers; or that a number of them work in high finance.

The North-South divide is not a stereotype; it is inequality in its most concrete form. There are many cases where a Filipina worked here her whole life, only to send her daughter here again as a maid. This cross-border inequality is transmitted from generation to generation as a result of not only global inequality between countries, but also local laws and regulations governing the employment of domestic workers.

Filipinos usually hold low-end jobs in Hong Kong not because the invisible hand of the market decides their talents are best suited to such jobs, but as a result of our government's agreements with a number of Asian governments, which secure imported labor at less than minimum wages. Unlike the textbook, this is real discrimination, and it is institutional.

From direct interactions with them, I am fully aware that educated Filipinos are as sophisticated and capable as people of any nationality. This fact makes it even more unfair that our laws prevent them from competing with others on a level playing field and work here as, for example, English teachers.

The stark reality is that Filipino domestic helpers would have been able to move on to better jobs in Hong Kong had we granted them the right to permanent residence after seven years, thereby granting them the same privileges as we offer other foreign workers. But according to our law, foreign domestic workers are deemed not ordinary resident in Hong Kong, and therefore ineligible for consideration as permanent residents no matter how long they have worked here.

It is always easy to pick on a textbook publisher. Such cheap shots convey a sense of moral superiority. To me, a textbook that portrays relationships between the races as being equal will be far more disturbing and offensive. Give me an example of a British citizen working here as domestic worker for a Filipino, and I will swallow the paper upon which this article is published.

The author is a current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 06/23/2014 page9)

主站蜘蛛池模板: 黔西县| 达孜县| 雷州市| 寻乌县| 肇州县| 承德市| 吴堡县| 象山县| 达州市| 阜平县| 平定县| 汶上县| 梓潼县| 攀枝花市| 富平县| 马公市| 丰城市| 民权县| 信丰县| 太仆寺旗| 贞丰县| 安丘市| 措勤县| 将乐县| 昭苏县| 时尚| 双鸭山市| 高州市| 罗山县| 渑池县| 岳阳市| 龙门县| 沅陵县| 五华县| 阜阳市| 灵寿县| 宜兰市| 论坛| 江北区| 渑池县| 屯留县| 内江市| 家居| 新巴尔虎左旗| 安国市| 南召县| 鄂尔多斯市| 锦屏县| 缙云县| 瑞安市| 吉安市| 烟台市| 衡阳市| 水城县| 改则县| 湟中县| 商水县| 林甸县| 霍城县| 屏山县| 铁力市| 江川县| 广饶县| 耿马| 铅山县| 江城| 宁都县| 苍山县| 安庆市| 无极县| 瑞昌市| 册亨县| 北京市| 永修县| 洪江市| 白水县| 望都县| 普洱| 仁怀市| 政和县| 界首市| 特克斯县|