In 1775, the British political thinker, Samuel Johnson, famously stated, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Contrary to widespread belief, he was not attacking patriotism itself but what he saw as the false, cynical patriotism of his political opponents led by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. Unfortunately, Johnson’s sentiments seem to have been taken literally by the BBC’s Kelly Ng in a recent article on Hong Kong’s efforts to enhance patriotic education in its schools. Given the broadcaster’s recent hostile stance on Hong Kong, it isn’t surprising that the coverage was extremely negative.
The article ostensibly focused on a series of routine reports released by Hong Kong’s education bureau after it inspected a range of primary and secondary schools, and interviewed staff and parents. The “big news” at the heart of the BBC article was that: “Hong Kong officials have singled out at least two schools for singing the Chinese national anthem ‘too softly’. Teachers at a third school have been asked to help students ‘cultivate habit and confidence’ in singing it.” Why such comments deserved prominent reporting by the BBC may seem bizarre. I can’t imagine anyone in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world being the slightest bit interested in the quality of anthem singing in a handful of schools in Hong Kong. Even the article’s headline was mind-numbingly dull and parochial: School children sang anthem too softly — Hong Kong.
However, it soon became clear that the real purpose of the article was to denigrate any attempt to enhance patriotism in Hong Kong in the wake of China’s nationwide efforts to promote national unity and harmony by including “patriotic education” in the curriculum. This policy, rather than being taken at face value, is portrayed in the article as being “meant to promote the leadership and ideology of the Chinese Communist Party”, with critics seeing it “as yet another sign of Hong Kong’s autonomy disappearing”. Patriotism, it declares, “has become a byword for China’s growing control of the city”. Clearly, the BBC has taken the popular misinterpretation of Johnson’s dictum and applied it to Hong Kong, with Beijing very much in the role of the “scoundrel”.
It’s worth reminding the BBC that Hong Kong is indeed part of China under the “one country, two systems” constitutional formula. ... There’s an inherent inconsistency here in the BBC’s stance on Hong Kong. It has always supported the concept of “one country, two systems” but is now condemning Beijing for having the temerity to include Hong Kong in its perfectly legitimate “one country” patriotic education initiative
In evaluating this hatchet job on patriotic education in Hong Kong, it is worth considering how patriotism is viewed elsewhere in the world and how this compares with the approach in Hong Kong and the rest of China. First, however, it’s worth reminding the BBC that Hong Kong is indeed part of China under the “one country, two systems” constitutional formula. This was agreed by Beijing and London in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, prior to the handover of the territory from Britain to China in 1997. There’s an inherent inconsistency here in the BBC’s stance on Hong Kong. It has always supported the concept of “one country, two systems” but is now condemning Beijing for having the temerity to include Hong Kong in its perfectly legitimate “one country” patriotic education initiative. This demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the constitutional formula or a mischievous attempt to undermine it.
Having clarified that Beijing has the absolute right to include Hong Kong in its efforts to promote national unity and harmony through patriotic education nationwide, let’s now look at how this compares with elsewhere. One of the most overtly patriotic countries in the world is probably the United States. In September 2020, then-president Donald Trump announced plans for a commission to support patriotic education in the US. His declared intention was to “teach our children the magnificent truth about our country. We want our sons and daughters to know they are the citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world”. Trump’s characteristically bombastic language no doubt raised a few American eyebrows, but his fundamental message about promoting US patriotism was not new. Pledging allegiance to the flag and the republic originated in 1885 and school students are still encouraged to perform this ritual daily. Similarly, American flags are still hoisted at most US schools. History syllabuses invariably inculcate pride in the nation, including a positive spin on the early European settlers, the War of Independence, the Western frontier, the Civil War, and the US’ role in two world wars.
The overt American approach to flag-waving patriotism is often ridiculed by people in the UK and regarded as little more than unsophisticated indoctrination. However, British patriotism, if less obvious in daily life, is still very much in evidence in events such as royal ceremonies or international sporting occasions. Britain also takes pride in its national heroes like Admiral Nelson, the Duke of Wellington or the World War II prime minister, Winston Churchill. The history syllabus in most schools reflects this, being predominantly Anglocentric in nature. It’s also notable that in the recent general election campaign both of the major political parties indulged in shows of patriotic fervor featuring the British flag.
So for the BBC to criticize Beijing for promoting patriotism in Hong Kong, while saying nothing about US or British patriotic practices, is somewhat hypocritical to say the least. A more honest approach would be for the broadcaster to look at patriotism worldwide and to stimulate a proper debate about its nature, its pros and cons, its positive impact and also its dangers.
On the positive side, patriotism, meaning a love and appreciation of one’s country, inculcates a feeling of belonging and commitment to a country, nation or political community. The origins of the term go back over 2,000 years to Ancient Greece and Rome, where loyalty to the “patria” (native homeland) was associated with the love of law and common liberty, the search for the common good, and the duty to behave justly toward one’s country. Few people today would disagree with this ideal of virtuous patriotism.
However, as Johnson pointed out, the ideal can easily become corrupted into the “false patriotism” which he was attacking. In particular, it can be all too easy for the positive values of patriotism to morph into the jingoistic, xenophobic, “my country right or wrong” nationalism which spawned two world wars. Adolf Hitler was the epitome of a populist leader who was able to corrupt patriotism in this way, convincing many of his citizens to equate love for one’s country with a feeling of superiority over other countries, races, and cultures. We can still witness this “false patriotism” today wherever populist politicians, posing as “patriots”, incite hatred of foreigners, immigrants, minorities or even those with different political beliefs. Sadly, this now seems to be a growing trend in many Western countries.
The goal for all governments worldwide should be to promote the ideal of virtuous patriotism without going down the route of indoctrination, propaganda, and populist nationalism. True patriots love their country and aspire to the common good. They also recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their country and constructively criticize those areas which require improvement. They appreciate that other countries have their own strengths and weaknesses, and that their people deserve respect. Most importantly, they recognize that being a patriot and being an internationalist are not mutually exclusive. Patriotism is only the last refuge of the scoundrel where these criteria are willfully ignored.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
