| Author | Message | ||
     ctk ( - 203.218.2.120) Rating: N/A |
Too early to study June 4: historians Polly Hui (Extract SCMP 13/4) Adam Lui Yuen-chung, a veteran professor of the History Department at the University of Hong Kong and president of the Hong Kong History Society, said it was inappropriate to teach historical events that occurred in the last three decades when official documents had not yet been released by governments. Yes, agree "It is difficult to obtain a comprehensive and balanced view of world events if history is based solely on news reports and academic journals. Students would likely find themselves learning 'history' that will be overturned after 30 years or so," he said. Many questions about recent events, such as the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989, remained unanswered, he said. "We don't know how many and who exactly died in Tiananmen Square. We still have little idea of who Zhao Ziyang was because his files have not been publicised. We lack understanding on why Deng Xiaoping preferred Li Peng over Zhao," Professor Lui said. For such an event, teachers might also have been participants rather than mere passive observers, further compromising their objectivity, he said. Contemporary history, he advised, should be discussed in civic education or liberal studies, not as part of a history exam syllabus. Dr Leung Ping-wa, chairman of the Chinese History Education Society, thought it unwise for the Education Department to standardise the role contemporary history should play in the curriculum. "Teachers should be given the freedom to link recent historical events to related issues in the existing curriculum. This can boost students' interest in the subject, and they won't be forced to memorise information that cannot yet be confirmed." Agree. The CDC's proposal involves shortening the period under study from the 1760s-1970s to 1919-1990s. History of the second half of the 20th century, which is only one of the 14 compulsory topics in the existing curriculum, will take up two-thirds of the new version. Highlights will be the rise of Japan after World War II, decolonisation of south and southeast Asia, and recent political and social movements in both mainland China and the SAR. Lee Chi-hung, senior curriculum officer (personal, social and humanities education) of the CDC, said that the increased emphasis on 20th-century Asia would allow students to learn history that was most relevant to themselves. Relevant? What does it mean by most relevant? Do u think e.g. the study of admin, constitutional development of HK (such a small place!) be most relevant and interesting to students? To know current events, can we turn away from 19th century e.g. WWI? The change was in line with international reform of the subject, he added. In Britain, the US, Canada, Australia and mainland China, the focus had also been pushed forward to include the late-20th century. Here is HK, not democratic countries like UK and USA. Are we free to express thoughts on sensitive issues, plus lack of reliable sources as mentioned above? U know in UK there are lots of textbooks and materials out in market, well written and designed for their curriculum. There is serious lack of teaching and learning materials for HK, post 1960 China, SE Asian topic. A textbook publisher has hinted their constant headache with the proposed syllabus. Don't know why the gov't must put forward such change hastily esp. the structure of S3-6 and its linkage with UNiv is not yet determined. Pls don 't waste our time in hopping around lest students also become 'white mice'. Some topics also overlap with Chinese history subject. The absence of official documents would not be a problem as the ultimate aim was to help students think analytically and develop a macro-perspective of past events, Mr Lee said. Here raises the question of the nature of history. Is it going to merge with political studies, or liberal studies in future? Is history going to be a subject for training skills? Whether it's 'true' or not is not important anymore? Another significant change is the switch to a thematic or issue-based approach to studying history, a move away from the conventional chronological style that demands a focus on facts. Still to establish or know 'facts' is essential in history. Without facts, history is just a tool of politics. History is always in the service of the state since 19th century (in China). Is this going to change? |
