June 4 debate must be based on the facts
Should it be described as a massacre? Did the money and tents donated by Hong Kong people to the students in Tiananmen Square prolong the movement? Did the People's Liberation Army have an alternative to using force after being blocked by students and civilians?
Could the bloody crackdown have been avoided if students had tried to compromise? Should we put the June 4 baggage behind us and move on to strive for improvements in prosperity and livelihoods?
These questions have been repeatedly raised in the lead-up to June 4 each year since 1989. If this year is an exception, it is only because the debate has been even more intense and divisive. And, intriguingly, some students have hit the headlines.
At RTHK's City Forum on Sunday, a leader of a local youth group became locked in a war of words with veteran democrat Szeto Wah and forum host Joseph Tse Chi-fung, who was one of the last journalists to leave the square on June 4, 1989.
Stanley Lui, convener of the Hong Kong Youth Development Network, argued that the formation of 'dare-to-die' squads, led by student leader Chai Ling , showed that protesters had armed teams to kill soldiers. The nature of the movement had also changed after 'external forces' provided cash and necessities to the hunger strikers in the square, he said.
University and secondary school students have raised similar issues of late. On Saturday, a secondary school student reportedly told a forum that students were manipulated by the United States to topple the Communist Party.
And last month, Ayo Chan Yi-ngok was removed as University of Hong Kong student union president in a referendum by students after he claimed that some of the 1989 student leaders had acted irrationally. He branded Ms Chai, chief commander of student protests in the square, a 'runaway' leader, claiming she was the first to flee before the crackdown.
The Beijing student-bashing comments by youngsters have triggered an uproar from fellow students, sections of the media, pro-democracy activists and ordinary people. Most Hongkongers who witnessed the events in Beijing that summer find it hard to accept views that contradict their beliefs and understanding of the movement.
True, the exact death toll remains a mystery. Details are still incomplete of the clashes between students and civilians and Chinese troops at various places in Beijing late on June 3 and in the early hours of June 4.
A host of 'what if' questions relating to critical developments in the weeks-long protest - for instance, about a change in tactics by students - can be asked. Such discussions can, indeed, help foster a better understanding and help lessons be learned.
Students, of course, should be encouraged to develop independent, critical thinking and a dare-to-challenge attitude to seek the truth. But the basis of critical views must be facts, and a sense of proportion and objectivity, bearing in mind the movement's nature as a spontaneous show of patriotism.
When students subscribe to the conspiracy theory of a western plot against communist China, they should substantiate their claims with evidence. Meanwhile, the role of Hong Kong in supporting the student-led democratic movement was more symbolic than material, so should not be exaggerated.
Young people born after June 4, 1989, are arguably in a better position to understand Tiananmen without the burden of the past - but only if they start by knowing the past.
In a joint statement scheduled to be published on June 4, a group of ex-Hong Kong student leaders hold out hope that young people will understand the facts and history, and keep the June 4 spirit alive.
To borrow a journalistic gem of wisdom, comment is free, but the facts are sacred.
Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large.
