LettersHong Kong DSE row shows Japanese atrocities not forgotten, and highlights need to remember those who suffered

2-MIN READ2-MIN

Visitors look at an interactive panorama of the Marco Polo Bridge incident, which sparked the Second Sino-Japanese war, at a memorial museum in Wanping town, west of Beijing, in 2015. Photo: Simon Song

Published: 8:00am, 3 Jun 2020Updated: 8:00am, 3 Jun 2020

On May 14, Hong Kong students sitting the history exam for the Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) were faced with the question, “‘Japan did more good than harm to China in the period 1900-45.’ Do you agree?”

Hong Kong’s exam authority, the HKEAA, has since decided to invalidate the question that sparked much controversy. On the one hand, it was seen as insensitive to those who suffered under Japan’s occupation, and viewed as a leading question encouraging students to argue that Japan did do good in China. On the other hand, it was seen as encouraging the consideration of different perspectives.

Certainly, to score highly in this question, you would need to consider both sides of the argument. But is recognising that some good was done tantamount to undermining the bad? Many are arguing that it is disrespectful to those who suffered under the Japanese occupation. But this question is nothing like “Holocaust denial”. It does not deny that Japan did horrendous things, but rather hints at it through what is not mentioned in the sources and encourages students to use their own knowledge to construct an argument.

The 2020 DSE history question that sparked controversy and was later invalidated. Photo: Handout

It is clear why the question can be considered insensitive. Would the question “‘The Nazi party did more good than harm to Germany in the period 1933-45.’ Do you agree?” cause similar controversy in Germany and be considered disrespectful to Holocaust survivors? Perhaps.

The further we move away from the period in which these atrocities occurred, the easier it becomes to view them less emotively. Yes, Mary I of England killed a few hundred Protestants, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the good she did. Few would argue that it is insensitive to ask whether Mary did more good than harm to England between 1553 and 1558, because that was in the 16th century.