Last week I made the case that the liberal studies courses in our schools have failed to deliver. This week I shall explore why these courses have failed to achieve what was intended.

First and foremost, in order to help students build a positive attitude to life and the ability to think critically, students must first learn the virtues of humility, respect for others and open-mindedness. Humility means that students should realize they can be wrong and others can be right. Only with humility can we learn the truth and grow up. Sadly, our teachers have not helped nurture humility.

It turns out that a senior teacher of liberal studies who had taught in two prestigious schools and was in charge of liberal studies and who had served as the chairman of Hong Kong Liberal Studies Teachers' Association as well as the Subject Committee Chairman for Liberal Studies under the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, posted on his Facebook the words "May the entire family of black police die". Upon receiving complaints, he made an apology, saying: "On the day of the clashes on June 12, given their seriousness and given that I was unaware as to whether my relatives were at the scene, I worried about the safety of them in view of the strong fire power of the police. I also got emotional thinking about the grim prospects of our youngsters. I became overwhelmed by my emotions and posted radical language on Facebook. I have now deleted it, and would like to extend my heartfelt apologies to the police and other related persons." He went on to say that he "has always acted professionally as a teacher" and that "thousands of teachers can testify that his assessment of examination scripts has never been affected by his political stance".

Unfortunately - I say unfortunately because this is so toxic and so detrimental to the interests of Hong Kong - he was either emotionally unstable or lying. My question is this: How can an emotionally unstable teacher or one with deep hatred for the police teach liberal studies effectively? As a teacher, his actions portray the person that he really is, and he is setting a very bad example to his students. If a senior liberal studies teacher with the preeminence of the positions he has held cannot set a good example, what can we expect of others who teach the subject throughout Hong Kong's schools?

Then there is the very powerful Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (PTU). It has over 90,000 members. It has posted a lot of material for teachers to download for their liberal studies courses. The Chinese mainland that is portrayed in these materials is not a balanced portrayal of what it really is. It refers to the June 4 incident in 1989 as a "massacre", which means indiscriminate and deliberate killing of people. While there were deaths, with fatalities including soldiers and students, is there proof that people were killed deliberately en masse? I have seen reports from reporters and from eyewitnesses saying that students were evacuated from the Tiananmen Square peacefully and orderly as well as video clips to that effect. Why were the killing of soldiers not included? The use of the term "massacre" is much too loaded to be an objective description of what had happened.

Regarding the materials on the illegal "Occupy Central" protests, there is a slide presentation titled "Talking about Occupy to Children", which is for teachers in junior classes. It likened the requirement, stipulated in the Basic Law, for a nominating committee to first nominate candidates who then stand for chief executive elections to parents who had promised to allow their children to choose toys freely but then reneged on their promise and just gave them a handful of pre-chosen toys from a toy library. "Children: How would you feel?" the slide asked.

This description of the provision in the Basic Law is taken totally out of context. Small children, naturally, will not understand the complex international situation which China is now involved in today. They were also not told that throughout the British rule in Hong Kong, there was not a trace of democracy. The children were not told why Beijing has its concerns and why there is a need to contain risks. They were not told that the nominating committee mechanism is in the Basic Law in order to contain risks. The narrative that it is like parents having promised a free choice of toys to their children and then suddenly reneging on their promises is far from accurate.

On the issue of civil disobedience in particular, using "Occupy" as a means to achieve so-called real democracy, the PTU portrayed the cost as merely an economic one and totally ignored the fact that "Occupy" was a violation of the rights of other citizens. There was no explanation that civil disobedience usually targets an offensive law and involves disobeying an unjust law, such as the old apartheid laws in South Africa, and does not target innocent fellow citizens.

I believe the above information is sufficient to show that liberal studies in practice has turned out to be more harmful than helpful in nurturing civilized, considerate behavior and critical thinking.

(HK Edition 07/09/2019 page9)