Parent Letter

Dear Sir/Madam,

I agree with my son’s point of view and thus allow him not to wear the blazer at school until a
further discussion is made.

Thank you for your understanding.

Yours faithfully,

Winter Chung Wing Tai

Parent of S4A(12) Marco Lau Chun Long
 ON THE FORMALITY OF BLAZER
For this writing to be fair, it is essential to have a precise definition of formality. The school has
been emphasising the importance of formality in school, yet students never have a consensus
with the school on the definition of the word “formality”. Cambridge Dictionary states that
formality is “the quality of being suitable for serious or official occasions”. It is understandable
that the quality of being suitable for serious or official occasions, id est, formality, is needed in
school, for, of course, serious or official occasions. However, does a mere blazer truly exemplify
the formality of students? This is the question struggling with my mind since Mr Newman Chan
gave the talk on formality and the necessity of a blazer. Through some exploration, this writing
will be sharing some of my personal thoughts, or if the dear reader prefers, consider these
thoughts as suggestions to the school, in order to obtain a better understanding of each other, as
well as create a comfortable learning environment in school for everyone.

This may seem to be an offensive question but it has no intention to be: Do the ‘Gangs’ in Hong
Kong have any formality? Intuitively, the answer is no. We would not think that the people who
sell drugs and commit violent crimes have any formality in them. Even if they wear suits or
blazers, we would not think they have any formality. Before you refute it, please listen to my
argument. My argument is not trying to suggest that ‘Gangsters wear blazers and are not formal,
and therefore blazers cannot represent students’ formalities in school”. Rather, my argument is
that the existence of formality is defined in one’s title.

If you have read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, you will know that the first few
chapters illustrate certain philosophies of language:

“A message denotes a specific, concrete statement about the world. But the forms of our media,
including the symbols through which they permit conversation, do not make such statements.
They are rather like metaphors, working by unobtrusive but powerful implications to enforce
their special definitions of reality. ……………………our media-metaphors are not so explicit or
so vivid as these, and they are far more complex. In understanding their metaphorical function,
we must take into account the symbolic forms of their information, the source of their
information, the quantity and speed of their information, and the context in which their
information is experienced. Thus, it takes some digging to get at them, to grasp, for example, that
a clock recreates time as an independent, mathematically precise sequence; that writing recreates
the mind as a tablet on which experience is written; that the telegraph recreates news as a
commodity.”

There are already existing symbolic forms and the context in which gangsters are established,
usually as “informal”. Gangsters are seen as people who fight on the street, sell drugs to the poor,
and kill people in rival gangs. Eventually, these contexts in which they are perceived become the
definition of gangsters. Because of their titles, gangsters would not be seen as formal even
though they all wear the same formal blazer as the business elites working in Central.
As for students, the word student is already a ‘media-metaphor’ (using Postman’s terminology),
and it defines students as entities that contain formalities. Or in a broader sense, any title in the
educational sector and academia must contain formalities. Let us use university scholars as an
index. The title “scholar” contains a strong (or even strongest) image of formality. Professors and
PHDs are ‘formal entities’ in their ‘media-metaphor’: The academic professionalism of scholars
recreates them as people who are ‘formal entities’. Even for scholars that have very few
exemplifications of formality in them, (exempli gratia, Slavoj Žižek), if we just know that he is a
scholar and that have never met him before, we would still have assumed he acts formally,
although he does not act formal, id est, contradicts the image of scholars in our mind.

It is proved that a mere blazer cannot enhance an entity’s formality, the fundamental condition is
still the title of the entity. So, if students’ actions are aligned with the public expectations based
on how the title defines us, we must be formal, even without the blazer. Unlike Zizek, our actions
do not contradict our title. Let us use Zizek’s “academic nemesis” - Jordan Peterson as an
example. He acts formally for long enough, and the image he shows to the public aligns with his
title. Therefore we can conceive the formality in him anytime even if he does not wear formal
clothing. Or even if Peterson makes a joke, there is still formality in him.

The title of “Hong Kong Student” and their actions have been formal long enough. Starting from
St. Paul Co-Education College (id est, St. Paul's Girls' College in 1918), the formality is already
building up. Both British and Chinese sense of formality has been created since then, 旗袍,
shirts, ties, sailor suits, et cetera. Since the image has already been there for decades, adding a
blazer in our uniform will not make us seem more formal as it cannot simply change the
definition of the title.

However, even if the school insists on the need to create formality with accessories, there are still
substitutes, with even higher utility. Sweaters and cardigans. Nowadays, even in the business
world, without blazers, many businessmen and businesswomen are still capable of containing
their formalities while wearing sweaters and cardigans. To be honest, it is quite intuitively
correct that sweaters and cardigans in plain colour (exempli gratia, dark blue, black or gray.)
contain formality. They can be washed easily, unlike blazers, but at the same time also create the
same effect as blazers. There is no need for wearing a blazer if there exists a simpler option, for
the school, for the students and for the parents.

I believe that this new policy of the school is too conventional and kitsch.

The school argued that in the past 3 years of irregularity, we could not implement the rules. But
even when I was in F1(2019), I still recall that students were not required to wear a blazer on
formal dressing days, and I believe that many teachers also recall that. It is actually very
disappointing to see that the school is changing, from a progressive attitude to traditional
thinking. I believe that the school should continue to be progressive, which means, ALLOWING
STUDENTS TO WEAR BLAZERS BASED ON THEIR OWN NEEDS, BUT NOT FORCING
THEM TO DO SO.

It is also kitsch, using Kundera's language. “Kitsch is the denial of bad stuff, and acting like it
does not exist”. Of course, it is understandable that the school want students to be regulated and
formal. But changing a clothing item is just kitsch, it does not help anything. It is a denial of the
fundamental reason for “the informality of student” (quote unquote as it is from the school’s
perspective, not mine), changing the representation of student clothing is just pretending the
fundamental reason for informality does not exist.

Another disappointment is the method of the school in handling this issue. The school did not
provide a proper communication channel between the school and the students and parents. I did
approach Mr. Newman Chan, but the discussion result was not really satisfactory. Likewise,
there are also parents who approached the school, the result was not satisfactory either. The
school did not provide a well-constructed justification for wearing a blazer and not even a
definition of “formality”. Without the above conditions, the school still insist to conduct a harsh
inspection and students have to bear the consequences if they do not wear the blazer. The school
is supposed to convince and educate the students, which means having discussions with them if
they do not feel like following the new rule, but not using terror, the terror of the risk of bearing
consequences before they don’t even know if the new rule is justified. This is something almost
as if it is political repression. Of course, the school does not have the intention to do that, but this
is at least what I genuinely feel. And clearly, there is room for improvement. I am not unwilling
to bear any consequences just because I wrote this writing of suggestion.

I hope this writing can open up some discussion space between students and the school, and also
let us achieve mutual understanding. Just like what Russel said, “I might be wrong”. The
arguments in this writing could be wrong as well, therefore we need discussion and
communication. Through dialectics, I believe that the school and students must be able to find a
common ground, and finally achieve consensus.