University of Warwick Undergraduate Research Support Scheme
The post-war educational policies in Hong Kong, such as the expansion of public education and regulation of textbooks, indeed improved the standard of education and benefited the public. Also, the amended Education Ordinance gave the British government a legal ground for its action taken against the communist schools.
However, was the law itself fair? Did the British government always obtain enough evidence before deregistering a school or a teacher?
​
1. Education Ordinance - grey area & ambiguity
​
Some clauses in the Education Ordinance were ambiguous, and whether a school or staff breached the rule was largely dependent on the subjective judgement of the Director of Education. For example,
​
-
The Director could refuse to register a school if "it appears to him that…the proposed manager is not a fit and proper person to act as supervisor.”
-
The Director could refuse to register a teacher if "it appears to him such applicant has not established that he is a person of good character.”
-
The Director could direct the closure of schools where "in the opinion of the Director – there is any danger whatsoever or risk of such danger to persons in a school.”[1]
Vague phrases like “appears to him” and “fit and proper person” gave the government massive power to punish any potentially threatening schools, but backed by a law and appeared just at the same time.
​
The deregistration of the teacher Miss Fung Fei Fung is a case in point.
​
[1] CO 1045/168
​
2. The refusal of Miss Fung's registration
​
Miss Fung Fei Fung was an English teacher at St. Catherine’s School for Girls. She studied Music at Yen Ching University in mainland China because there was no institution for further studies in music in Hong Kong. Before that, she lived and was educated in Hong Kong.
Image via St. Catherine's School for Girls
When she studied in mainland China, she had fierce tension with the CCP. She was expelled from university because of being too “individualist”, and she was sent to forced labour because she was not anti-rightist enough. She was also imprisoned during the Cultural Revolution.
​
Considering Miss Fung’s educational background in mainland China, the British government banned her from teaching in Hong Kong because:
01.
The Education Ordinance empowers the Director of Education to refuse a permit to teach if he is satisfied that "the environment in which the person has received any part of his education…make the person unsuitable as a teacher in Hong Kong”.
However, the Ordinance does not explain what the “environment” is.
02.
The Director of Education explained that it was a "standard practice” of the Director to refuse permits to applicants who have been educated in China as they may “have absorbed communist beliefs”.
However, this is a personal practice not required in the Ordinance. The Director just assumed that persons who had been educated in mainland China were communists.
03.
If Miss Fung could teach in Hong Kong, the communist schools would follow and let their teachers apply for teaching permits.
&
The school she taught, St. Catherine’s School, is an Anglican school. The British government could show their impartiality if it refused Miss Fung’s teaching permit.[2]
​
However, they are irrelevant to Miss Fung's political leaning and professionalism as a teacher.
Therefore, the decision to reject Miss Fung’s registration was not supported by any factual evidence. It was a pre-emptive measure to prevent potential political threats and imitation of the communist schools.
​
In some cases, politics outweighed fairness, legality, as well as the well-being of students and teachers.
[2] National Archive, FCO 40/537, ‘Hong Kong government policy on education’