Dear Editor,
I am writing this letter to respond to the letter dated 8 Oct entitled “Class boycotts, hunger strikes not rational” written by Tobey Yuen. I disagree with his standpoint and suggestions.
In his letter, he stated that hunger strikes are detrimental to our health. However, I think this is an incorrect concept. In the hunger strike against national education, more than ten protestors joined and none of them had severe health problems and died. This showed that hunger strikes are not detrimental to our health. Besides, protestors joining hunger strikes can still drink water and gain enough nutrients to maintain their lives without having a lack of nutrition. Also, I have to apologize to disagree with Mr. Yuen when he mentioned that hypoglycaemia causes coma, damage to the nervous system and other serious health problems. However, from the public media, we often see the hunger strike participants making big crosses with their arms and demanding to withdraw national education loudly. This proves hunger strike does not affect their health at all and their bodies are functioning perfectly.
Regarding Mr. Yuen’s second argument, he said that boycotting class is a waste of time as teenage years are a time to learn and experience life. I am afraid I have to disagree with him. Class boycott itself is an experience of life and we can certainly learn a lot about life and current issues since the leaders of class boycotts will talk about the pros and cons of national education and their opposition towards it. Then, how can anyone say it is a waste of time? In addition, in his letter, Mr. Yuen himself agreed that a class boycott is itself an experience and he is not opposed to learning about life that way. However, his standpoint is opposing class boycotts. So, there is a contradiction between his view and his arguments which makes me further oppose to his standpoint. Furthermore, despite the fact that class boycotts and school lessons are different and the things learned in class boycotts and those of school lessons are not the same, this does not mean that things learned in class boycotts are less significant than those of school lessons. In fact, they are much more exigent and momentous that some young activists emerge to demand the withdrawal of national education because of them. One example is Joshua Wong Chi-fung, a 15-year-old secondary school student and co-founder of Scholarism, an organization to force the government to scarp national education. This proves things learnt in class boycotts are more influential and consequential than that in class.
It is a pity that Mr. Yuen has misconception on writing letters to the government being a rational and better way of expressing our opinions. The reason why there are class boycotts, hunger strikes and the “Occupy Tamar” campaign is that the government never cares about letters from the public. If they do not respond to any letters, than is writing letters to the government still an effective way? What we should do is to organize more demonstrations, hunger strikes and class boycotts so that the government must face the opposition of national education in society. It is illogical of Mr. Yuen to say that attending classes to gain more knowledge in a perfectly rational way is a rational way to express our opinions. Firstly, attending classes certainly cannot express any opinion to the government. But the biggest problem is that Mr. Yuen does not understand that the major reasons for class boycotts and hunger strikes are not gaining knowledge. The primary objective is to express our views and force the government to face them. To do so, only class boycotts, hunger strikes and demonstrations can achieve such a goal. That is why we should join more activities like those but not to attend any classes to gain any knowledge which is irrelevant.
Yours faithfully,
Tim Tam
Tim Tam
Kowloon City