Source:
https://scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3018319/what-hong-kong-students-learn-liberal-studies-how-live-different Letters
What Hong Kong students learn from liberal studies is how to live with different views
A 2018 survey by the Professional Teachers Union showed nearly 80 per cent of teachers supported keeping liberal studies as a compulsory subject in schools. Photo: Handout
On July 7, Henry Kwok wrote that liberal studies, if properly taught, can help defuse political extremism. I would argue further that, even if the high school subject stays the same, it could still serve this function.
The author criticised the subject’s assessment method. He said students are assessed on their “ability to write structured essays”, rather than showing critical thinking. This relates to the framework of “multiple perspectives”, whereby students are encouraged to discuss the viewpoints of various stakeholders.
While answers derived from this approach are not logically the tightest, this process helps students put themselves into others people’s shoes. Hopefully, they can then realise that diverse but often equally persuasive views can exist, and recognise that an answer to a societal problem is often a trade-off among competing values, and a compromise between interest groups.
Furthermore, liberal studies instils basic knowledge into teenagers. At their age, most of them are bound to rely on fragmented information when engaging in political participation. This danger is compounded by their reliance on social media – an echo chamber. If students are exposed to facts and the history of our world, they can better calculate the likely consequences of their actions. They may stop before acting in extreme ways, since they know that even behaviour with genuine motives can harm society.
Let’s not succumb to short-termism or scapegoat a subject that could win calm in our society.
Sam Lo, Kowloon Bay
Youth discontent will simmer without real reform
As a resident of Hong Kong for over 20 years, I was saddened, like many to see the scenes in the Legislative Council on July 1.
The question that needs to be asked is, what caused us to get where we are – why have young people with their futures ahead of them resorted to such desperate measures? With jail terms of potentially 10 years, the risk that they have ruined their futures is real. But perhaps the answer lies in that future.
The answer to me is pretty clear – young people see little future or road map to having a direct say in how Hong Kong is governed. The Legislative Council is loaded to never truly represent Hong Kong and there is no clear path towards direct elections and universal suffrage.
At every twist and bend along the river of political reform, the hopes and aspirations of so many people have been stymied – and not just by Beijing.
Most political parties in Hong Kong are more concerned with currying favour in Beijing than actually pushing through democratic reforms or doing what is best for Hong Kong.
Sadly this will continue until a clear and definite path to universal suffrage is mapped out – and this is what was enshrined in the Basic Law.
People want to have the opportunity to elect or boot out a government. The disconnect will continue until the chief executive of Hong Kong answers directly to the Hong Kong people via the ballot box. Hong Kong was promised this but it has yet to be delivered. As time ticks by, desperate people resort to desperate measures.
James Griffiths, Pok Fu Lam
Begin an official inquiry to answer public concerns
I find that Executive Councillor Ronny Tong (“Heal the wound”, July 10) glosses over the issues at the forefront of the community’s concerns. It is as though he thinks it is appropriate to place a band-aid on a deep head wound. In a total contrast, Andrew Li’s article “The way forward” (July 9) showed wonderful insight and oodles of common sense.
I venture that the vast majority of protesters who attended the recent June 9, June 16, July 1 and July 7 marches would wholeheartedly support the former chief justice’s recommendations. Chief Executive Carrie Lam Yuet-ngor shows that she still is unable to come to terms with the issues and is taking only half-measures (“Lam’s peace offer rejected”, July 10). If Mrs Lam and her Executive Council advisers really want to heal the wound and move forward, they should accept Andrew Li’s experienced perspective and first officially withdraw the bill and then appoint a statutory independent commission of inquiry.
Roger Emmerton, Wan Chai