花辨直播官方版_花辨直播平台官方app下载_花辨直播免费版app下载

As British writer Rudyard Kipling penned "...but we by the right, our heart where they rocked our cradle, out love where we spent our toil, and our faith and our hope, and our honour, we pledge to our native soil." The lines came from the poem "Native Born" written in 1893. Kipling would not have imagined that more than a century later, in Hong Kong, the promotion of national education has even met with strong headwinds blowing in opposition.

It may be understood that the helter-skelter dash to introduce national studies has sparked concerns over the heavy workload of teaching staff, curriculum content, and the students' evaluation of the subject, of which all have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, against the backdrop of the 15th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China, national education's objective to enhance students' moral character and national identity should not come as a surprise to anyone. The subject warrants our unremitting support, as students' understanding about our own country and that independent and critical minds must be cultivated.

In addressing the simmering concerns on the implementation of the national education, a committee with broad enough representation will be set up, through which stakeholders' views may be gathered over a three-year initiation period. Secondly, students' performance in the national education will also not be graded so that the pressure-free learning environment will be created. Given the national study programs have already been smoothly implemented in the UK, US, South Korea and Singapore, there is little reason to baulk at the idea of national education being voluntarily launched this coming September.

Given that the 2012 Legco Election will take place next month, the opposition's attempts to equate national education and brainwashing reveals political manoeuvring. As Hong Kong guarantees the free flow of information and free access to a diversity of ideas, it is impossible for students to be brainwashed by an excerpt taken from support materials. In effective teaching and learning, it is the classroom interaction of both the teachers and students that matters the most. Any insidious motives to force a link between the excerpt of a national education reference book and brainwashing won't stand both reasonably and logically.

Ironical as it seems, the ill-founded "brainwashing" claim against the national education, staged by the Professional Teacher's Union, harshly refutes the widely-held view concerning how greatly the city will benefit from those critical minds possessed by most of our teachers and students. Worse still, the Union's plan to mobilize teachers and students to boycott classes this September is totally irresponsible, falling short of the professionalism and the moral issues the public expects from our teachers. In the election campaign, it is inevitable that politicized means will be resorted, but it should be confined to the extent that no public interests shall be compromised.

Distilling down the matter to the "brainwashing" controversy, which is self-directed by the opposition, it reveals the opposition's secessionist psyche for China. Evidence could be drawn from the opposition's sole emphasis over the differences of "Two Systems", while not giving a blink to the importance of "One Country" where such differences are oriented.

Taking the contentious national education curriculum as an example, if the curriculum were rescinded at the whim of the opposition, a majority of students will have little factual knowledge of our country: its size, flag, culture, geography etc...Without a full grasp of concepts of "One Country, Two Systems" and our country, our future generation may risk being manipulated as clones, or even lackeys by the opposition against our own country.

Amid a cacophony of criticism against national education, we may rest assured that the few kinks concerning its implementation shall soon be resolved after timely reviews. No delay should be warranted to justify the "brainwashing" claims that are now proved falsified, nor should the curriculum be withdrawn to please the opposition who oppose for its one sake. Margaret Thatcher said in her autobiography, "The Path to Power", that reading Kipling's poems gave her greater access to the British Empire and English history. Dare any of her fellows, if not the opposition in Hong Kong whose minds are always reminiscent of the colonial times, criticize her of being "brainwashed"? Obviously, they dare not.

The author is a current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 08/09/2012 page3)