Recently, I met with some friends from Japan. The communication between us has always been open and free, so we also discussed some controversial issues. We had a chance to advance our points of view over the Diaoyu Island issue. And later on, we came to the question of why we are sticking so "stubbornly" to our views about the dispute. Coincidentally similar answers were given: both parties love their country, when it comes to national dignity and interest. The sentiments were more or less the same, a conviction to everything to defend our countries without compromise.

During the discussion, a friend of mine asked, "To have ardent love for the motherland and nation is a core value universally acknowledged. Then why should some Hong Kong people be opposed to the subject of national education which the HKSAR government intends to implement?" The question put me in a rather awkward situation because I didn't know how to respond.

Indeed, if the moral and national education curriculum can teach the future masters of Hong Kong about their country and cultivate their patriotic sentiments, what's the problem of implementing it? The future of our country and the city of Hong Kong will always need successors, and the next generation of successors will do nothing contributive if its leaders don't feel the passion for our country and our city. Strangely, however, whenever it comes to the issue of the curriculum, some people feel such intense dislike that they have mounted protest marches in opposition. From a broad, international perspective, it is a phenomenon difficult to understand.

The demonstrators choose to ignore not only the explanations by the Hong Kong SAR government but also the opinions of groups which favor implementation. They hold to their views stubbornly for only one stated reason, claiming they are opposed to brainwashing.

Equating national education to brainwashing is definitely misguided. The current protesters, throughout the demonstration, pointed only to a single object in which their opposition was crystallized, a brochure introducing the so-called "China Mode". The opposition protesters complained that some of the contents are slanted so as to make ideals appear to be the reality. Everyone has the right to his point of view. When we agree to disagree, we can have discussions and put forward suggestions. I believe, these suggestions are highly welcomed by the Education Bureau. But we also have to understand that the manual is merely a small part of the whole concept of moral and national education. As the proverb goes, one swallow does not make a summer. Therefore, we have no reason to refute its educational value and virtue just because we doubt one single aspect of its contents.

Hong Kong has always attached great importance to human rights and freedoms. The notion of "independent minds" is a core value of the city. If freedom of thought is right and a virtue for everyone, then why, "uniquely", should the thought of moral and national education be deemed unacceptable? Although people have the right to criticize the system, wouldn't it be better if they knew and understood what they are criticizing? Information about the country should be accessible to students to help them understand their country. Additionally, teachers and parents should give guidance to help children to think independently and analyze subjects from different perspectives. Students should be entitled to decide and judge for themselves what is beneficial and what is not. In this case, we cannot cut off all normal approaches to assist them to understand what is happening to the country, perhaps even to keep the information away from students entirely. It doesn't make sense to assert that "being exposed to a curriculum equals being brainwashed".

Through the implementation of the subject, the future masters of Hong Kong will be able to know about history and the condition of their country. It will make them aware of the current relationship between the mainland and Hong Kong. Having the general knowledge about the country in mind, the future successors can have a better understanding of the shortcomings of the mainland and Hong Kong and how to make improvements. In the future, when they are ready to succeed to the responsibility of making their contributions to the society, these successors will be able to advance the country and Hong Kong to even higher levels of advancement.

The author is vice-president of the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong.

(HK Edition 08/03/2012 page3)