June 4 Incident, History and Education

Just read from today’s Hong Kong newspaper that in this year’s public university entry examination, for the first time, the June 4 Incident came up as a subject for discussion in the general education paper. Some students were worried that how they answer the question would affect their scores and thus their chances of entering the university. There were anxieties about whether they should put their views forward honestly or avoid using words such as “suppression” or “massacre” that might not deem to be appropriate by the marking authorities.

Since the raising of these concerns, representatives of the Examination Authority have come out and asked students not to worry about how they argue the question as long as they could support their arguments with facts they think appropriate. They also asked students not to apply any sense of self-censorship because that is not the intention of the question. The purpose of the question was to encourage students’ critical thinking about current affairs that matters, and under the current “One Country Two Systems” governing model, there is no reason for students to feel pressured about aligning themselves with any authority to score higher marks.

I personally applaud the Examination Authority’s response to the matter. I also feel very comforted that individual thinking is still being promoted in the Hong Kong education system. A few years ago, some people were worrying about the Chinese government trying to brainwash the new generation Hong Kong students to achieve a “real unification”. The outlook was particularly dire a few years ago when the Government tried push forward a “national studies” curriculum that seemed to be nothing but sucking up to the mainland authorities. At that time a lot of people and educators were up in arms. Eventually the policy was scrapped, well kind of scrapped, because instead of making the “national education” subject compulsory, it became optional with a huge flexibility in what individual schools want to teach. At that time, the person behind this said it was about “helping students to understand their country and national identity better”. But for me and a lot of the people the subliminal messages behind this were otherwise.

Growing up as a colonial kid I received a very different education as compared to my cousins in the mainland. This is particularly true when I went to a British school where most of my teachers were expatriates or educators returned from overseas. I was trained thoroughly in independent and critical thinking. I do not know what is being taught in Hong Kong schools right now since I have moved overseas for a long period of time, but from this matter, I am glad to see that individual thinking is still being promoted. Does that make a person less patriotic when for example, one comments on sensitive issues such as the “June 4 Incident” and commands a different view from the authorities? Certainly not! For me the purpose of studying history, which the “June 4 Incident” is now a historical event, is to understand what was done correctly and learn from the past. If independent thinking is not encouraged when studying history, there is no point of even covering the subject. History is not just about the facts but how we understand the facts and then learn to appreciate or debate these historical issues.  

The “June 4 Incident” had happened and it will never go away because it is part the modern Chinese history now. So I do agree with the Examination Authority’s move to include this as a subject of discussion in the exam papers because avoiding the subject would do nobody good. It is an unfortunate and massive event, so there bound to be different views on this issue – should it be seen as a suppression or just a clearance operation, there are still many years for everyone to decide and there would never be a unanimous answer. However I believe the only way to understand this better is to continue to investigate and discuss about this, which I think is what the Examination Authority is trying to do.

The late Deng Xioaping promised the late Margaret Thatcher that Hong Kong would remain unchanged for at least 50 years under the newly crafted “One Country Two Systems” governing model. So I am glad that within certain context this is still happening and I look forward to see this Pearl of the Orient continues to shine through this unique freedom established by two the major political players of the time.