老師粗口事件令我失望？絕望？重拾希望？Newspaper article on social incident of the contention between a primary school teacher and the police

整個城市都因林慧思老師事件而起哄，林老師在事件中之行為表現，讓人失望：

有人認同林老師說粗口，因為她為了一些社會不公平事而義憤填膺，發聲，最後說粗口，事出有因，值得體諒、接 納，甚至支持。筆者不敢武斷地說誰是誰非，但是，縱使香港教育制度及課程如何改變，教育工作者都希望教導學 生能處變不驚，在面對挑戰及逆境時能平靜面對。於學校，若有學生遇到挑釁時，我們豈會接納他或她以暴易暴 ，甚至以更暴力的手法回敬。作為老師及校長的，向學生說「忍」不知多少次，又豈可隨便接納林老師是因「義憤 」而失言？ 從YouTube 片段看到林老師當天不斷追問警方人員她為何不能進入警方封鎖線？身為老師的她又是否任 由家長、其他人士隨時及隨便進入課室？林老師令我們失望！

具體地說，她違反了香港教育人員專業操守議會「專業守則」之2.6 段有關教育人員對公眾的義務。其中列出，教 育人員：

 

．應注意時事，關心社會問題，並致力維護良好的社會風氣。

．當公眾意見分歧時，應教導學生尊重不同的立場和觀點。

．應把尊重人權的教育視為要務。

．應致力培養學生的自由、和平、平等、理性、民主等意識。

 

事件發生後，據聞8 月11 日於特首落區到天水圍時，有12 歲中一學生在電視鏡頭前投訴被打，鏡頭後卻向人群擲 水樽兼講粗口。這是我們作老師及校長的希望學生仿效嗎？林老師只向學校、學生及家長道歉，並不全面及足夠 ，她一直堅持不會向當日執法的警員致歉。我們教導學生犯錯後需向當事人致歉，為何老師可以例外？林慧思亦向 傳媒指出，若果時光可以倒流，她會選擇用其他的表達方法，她也說倘若當日警員的語氣不同，她自己的反應亦會 不同，也不會有激動情緒。找藉口又豈是我們給學生樹立的榜樣？

於此，筆者要強調並不是偏幫任何一方，只是從教育工作者之角度指出我們需要思考之層面。林老師於教學有卓越 表現，必有她優勝地方，但是身為教育人員，應對自己的言行有一定之要求，正如社會人士對我們有一定之期望。

對部分市民及警務人員失望

筆者當然對部分警員之反應亦大惑不解，相信警務人員以往在執勤時曾受到更大之挑戰、「挑釁」，甚至身體之傷 害，為何他們從未如此高調反應？不過這事與香港教育無直接關係，姑且放下。然而，事件後不少市民及各方人士 不歇地向林老師任教學校之辦學團體、校董會、校長、教職員、甚至家長表達其個人意見，其中不乏過激的行動。 試問，林老師任教學校之辦學團體、校董會、校長及教職員等要處理事件之餘，更受到外界人士加以之壓力，再更 要應付教育局不停之查詢與關注，以及特首高調地要求的特別報告等，校長及教職員縱使傾盡全力應付，他們的正 業：教學工作，又豈不受影響？暑假本是學校策劃及落實政策的黃金時機，現在這群關注事件的市民的行動只對該 學校有負面影響。損失的正是他們聲稱關懷的學生。請問誰才是無辜的受害者？我們大眾市民、政府官員、特首應 否尊重學校？應否予以學校真正空間處理事件及全心全意做好教學工作？

對特首失望

學校有特別成就，政府或有官員到訪「了解」、「鼓勵」。學校發生任何不愉快事件，教育局往往首要學校提交報 告。官員之到訪，官員要求撰寫報告已叫學校面臨巨大壓力。現在特首要教育局提交報告，教育局理當悉力以赴 ，其中當然用了不少高官的工作時數。但是本人最關心的是：

1. 試問特首如此破香港紀錄要求報告，原因何在？以往教育人員違規犯事比說粗言更嚴重的何其多。特首不是更應 關注嗎？為何特首要作如此要求？ 

2. 試問特首在作出指令時，可有念及學校所承受的壓力？可有想到對學校教學工作之影響？

3. 請問那報告的範圍是什麼？報告的名題是什麼？

4. 報告是否單由教育局負責撰寫？報告將來是否公開？

5. 報告的內容如何跟進？

6. 可有想到白紙黑字的報告對涉及人士的影響？是什麼？

對香港教育人員 的專業地位感到絕望

不少人認為林老師事件交教育人員專業操守議會（以下簡稱「操守議會」）處理已足夠及穩妥。筆者須指出「操守 議會」的職權範圍，在涉及教育工作者的糾紛或指稱行為失當個案中，只是向教育局常任秘書長提供意見，且是沒 有約束力的意見。意見提供後，教育局常任秘書長有絕對權力決定如何處理。「操守議會」的確是大部分由前線教 育工作者組成，但是他們的「意見」只由一位可能全無實際教育工作經驗的官員作最後決定！

筆者10 多年來一直思想、提問及質疑，為何香港教育界不像醫學界、工程界、會計界及其他行業等享有自主權的管 理組織？

根據「操守議會」文件： 「1992 年初，教統會收到一份提出成立教師公會概念的聯合意見書。教統會認為，為教 育專業成立一個享有自主權的管理組織是個理想目標，但在成立這個組織前，有數項問題（例如會員資格、組織的 功能及職權範圍等）必須先予解決。此外，教統會希望教育工作者清楚明白成立監管組織的好處，並能給予支持 ，而不是在缺乏積極和廣泛支持的情况下通過立例強制施行。因此，教統會第5 號報告書建議首先成立一個教育人 員專業操守議會，並於數年後，檢討可否設立一個法定的專業管理組織。」1992 年提出之教育界監管組織，為何至 今連樓梯響聲也沒有？

香港人口口聲聲說重視人才培訓，但是教育人員連基本的專業地位亦沒有，我們及不少熱心人士一直以來鍥而不捨 地要求只得到冷淡的回應。對此，我感到絕望。

林老師事件是一個危機，也可以轉化為契機。我們冀盼林老師事件能激發教育工作者察看自己教育良心及檢視自己 的教育工作定位，香港整體落實對教育工程的重視，讓教育工作者建立其專業地位，讓學校與眾市民為香港重拾失 落的希望。作者是資深中學校長

老師粗口事件令我失望？絕望？重拾希望？

Summary

The foul language incident involving teacher Miss Lam Wai Sze has become the talk of the town recently. Some people accepted or even endorsed her behaviour saying that she was only reacting to the unjust treatment of the police. However to me, her behaviour was disappointing. As educators, we always teach our students to stay calm in face of challenges or adversities. An eye for an eye and violence against violence are not what we would encourage. How can we as teachers or principals justify Miss Lam’s behaviour on the grounds of her reaction to injustice?

Disappointment over Ms Lam’s behaviour

Miss Lam’s behaviour has violated Paragraph 2.6 of the Professional Code of the Council on Professional Conduct in Education (CPCE), which says a member of the profession shall:

• be aware of current affairs, show concern about social problems and do his/her best to maintain a healthy social environment.
• teach students to respect different positions and opinions in matters over which public opinion is divided.
• treat as a primary duty the teaching of respect for human rights.
• do his/her best to nurture in students the concepts of freedom, peace, equality, rationality and democracy.

After the incident, Miss Lam only apologized to the school, students and parents but not to the policeman involved. We always teach our students to apologize to the person whom they have wronged. How could Miss Lam being a teacher be an exception? Just as society has an expectation of our conduct, we should also have an expectation of our own behaviour.

Reactions of the citizens and the police

I believe that in the past the police must have encountered worse challenges to their power during their operations than the present one. But the police have never responded so strongly before. Why did they do so this time?

After the incident, many people eagerly expressed their opinions to Miss Lam’s school, its sponsoring body, school council, principal, and teaching staff, giving them extra pressure while they were busy handling the matter and answering the Education Bureau’s (EDB) non-stop enquiries. Their over-concern has negative effects on the school and its normal operation.

Reaction of the Chief Executive (CE)

The CE’s reaction is equally puzzling. He requested the EDB to submit a special report on the matter. My queries are:

1. The CE’s request for a report is unprecedented. We had more serious cases involving members of the education sector before, but the CE had never been so concerned. Why is it different this time?
2. Has the CE thought about the pressure on the school when he requested for the report?
3. What is the scope of the report? What is its title?
4. Is the report going to be written by the EDB alone? Will it be made public?
5. How would the report be followed-up?
6. Has anyone thought about the effect of the report on the persons involved?

Status of the education profession

Many people think that Miss Lam’s incident can be adequately dealt with by the CPCE. However, according to the CPCE’s terms of reference, when handling disputes or misconducts involving a member of the education profession, it can only give its opinion to the Permanent Secretary of the EDB. How to treat the opinion is entirely the prerogative of the Permanent Secretary. Why cannot the education profession have its own autonomous regulating body like the medical, engineering, accounting and other professions?

Hong Kong people always hail the importance of training and education. But if the continuous pursuit of we educators for a recognized professional status meets only with cold shoulders, isn’t this a hopeless situation?

We may perhaps turn the present crisis into an opportunity. We hope this incident will evoke members of the teaching profession to examine their position as educators. We hope that Hong Kong will truly live up to its claimed emphasis on education and move to acknowledge the professional status of its teaching profession.