What’s wrong with long hair restrictions in Hong Kong? Here’s why these restrictions should perish
These inimical “regulations” stand on nothing but cliché.
Uniformity? Simplicity? Hygiene? Disruption? Culture? Bullshit.
July 2022. Student Lam Chak-chun from Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Wong Fut Nam College lodged a complaint to the Equal Opportunities Committee against her school for not allowing him to wear long hair. A year later, the Committee ended the investigation, declaring the regulations lawful.
November 2023, days before my birthday (a beautiful birthday gift!), I was intercepted at the school entrance for my hair being “too long”. I was outraged, so in typical Matheo fashion, I wrote a 6-page article rebutting the rule. I then wrote 8 more articles and tried to get one on my school newsletter, though it was rejected for “inciting sentiments”.
Note what I’ll be rebutting is this set of rules:
“Hair should be kept short.”
“Fringe should not reach the eyebrows.”
“The length of hair should be above the shirt collar.”
“Hair on both sides should not cover the ears.
Bullshit rules
In early February, I forged a 10000-word essay and emailed it to the entire school, expecting novel ideas and rebuttals. I was disappointed by how most people argued solely from a societal and hypothetical standpoint — the five perspectives I stated. (Someone pointed out how passive-aggressive my essay was, which I somewhat agree and appreciate.)
People said uniformity in hair bolsters unity: almost all Hong Kong schools regulate their students’ hairstyle. With that in mind, it’s just evident that my identity as a student from Xxx Xxxx Xxxxxxx xx Xxxxxxxx Secondary School is reinforced by my hairstyle. Yeah!
People said hair ought to be kept simple, for a student should focus solely on their studies: that’s so reasonable! Obviously, if my fringe blocks my vision, I can’t read a book. It’s not like I can tie my hair or sweep my hair aside! Also, once your fringe reaches your eyebrows, you’re automatically flamboyant!
People said long hair isn’t hygienic: yeah, long hair may accumulate dirt and stuff, and boys are inherently more unhygienic than girls, right? No stereotyping here! Hong Kong is a rational society. As if boys would ever pay attention to their hair! The sole reason boys leave their hair long is because they don’t want to get a trim! Because they’re lazy and will never apply shampoo or even rinse their hair!
People said boys having long hair disrupts classes: I seriously can’t come up with anything sarcastic to say because this too ridiculous an opinion — as though every student was a stick in the mud and could never accept any sort of deviance from gender norm.
People said Hong Kong societal culture can’t accept boys wearing long hair: why does society have a say in something that doesn’t affect it at all? If people want to fix anything “abnormal” they should go fix their brains!
Any empirical evidence showcasing the rule’s effectiveness? No? I believe that rules should be grounded — if they are untenable, they should perish. Some have exhibited the exact opposite attitude — “Accept the rule, it just is.”
The man in the photo (not Lam) is Tang Fei. First and foremost, I think that everybody is entitled to their own rational opinions. This is my little philosophy — in societal discourse, everybody should strive to be as rational, logical, empirical, and practical as possible. I’m afraid that Mr Tang’s opinion is not logical at all. It relies on a set of arbitrary assumptions and personal preferences, such as the preference for “simplicity”, the underlying yet unproven assumption that long hair is unsanitary, the unproven logic that that boys sweating more, so their hair must be short, and the cowardly evasion from change because “I’m so afraid and I know everybody else in the education section is as well though I haven’t asked them because I just want to trot out big words and scare everyone so people believe what I say instead of opting for logical conclusions”.
Bullshit education
Let’s keep bombarding the system.
As I said, the school refuted my submission to the school newsletter. What pisses me off most about this system is how it treats students like products. What do I mean? Slightly individualistic? You can’t do that! The community matters even though letting you do your own shit won’t hurt the community whatsoever because it’s your own business but I still wanna care because I wanna unleash my thirst for control on you and pretend that’s “education” while it’s actually indoctrination.
“This Matheo guy is 16. He’s still a rascal, and he’s not qualified to be an adult yet. Instead of granting him the chance to express himself like an adult and control his life, we might as well strip away his control because, although that’ll keep him unpolished as a future citizen, that’s exactly what society needs,” nobody actually said that, but I feel that’s what they’re trying to do — treat students as children and keep them that way. It’s fair if primary students are treated as kids — I’m a secondary student though.
Without participation in discourse, no student can prosper in a world that needs novelty, imagination, or solicitousness. Hong Kong is evolving backwards. Among the cruxes of Hong Kong’s struggles is it’s obedience-focused education.
“Any form of rebellion is undesirable because stability matters.” Cowardice!
“You’re just a crybaby, grow up.” Who’s not growing up? The guy who paves a new road or the one who goes down the “normal” path? What do you mean by “growing up” anyway?
“Stop doing this, nerd. No one cares.” Who asked? (Internet Rumour, 2024 colourised) And you cared enough to drop your words.
