So I recently came across this article regarding the implementation of national education in Hong Kong, and this is my response to it. Feel free to fire your pistols at it.
1) I agree partially with the first point made: Children should learn to independently think before making a verdict on this issue. However, why are you treating teenagers as "children with no independent thoughts" (Line 3). There is a reason why teenagers go on demonstrations instead of "mature adults". (Most) Adults have resided from learning. They have graduated, and believed that their age of learning is over. Hence, they easily conform to policies and methods that make their lives easier. This is evident in this issue: The adults aren't even concerned in this event, since they are not affected even if national education is implemented! They are not the pawns for the demonstrators, since they are the demonstrators themselves. They are simply fighting for themselves, and as far as I know, there is not too much kids wandering around in the demonstration.
2) You want to know why we do not listen to the ideas of the advocating side? It is simply because they make no sense. The style of proper national education immediately conflicts with the policies that any pro-government politician would want to implement. Proper national education teaches students to clearly differentiate what is right or wrong about the country. It teaches us how the government functions, instead of feeding us patriotic bullcrap. We must be able to make a verdict on whether the government is performing correctly, and if we think we are proud to be a part of the country, we would feel that through learning about our government. If not, at least we know where the government has done wrong and we will be able to constructively criticize it or choose to stay away from it. What you now are trying to instill is the thought that our country is the best through NOT showing the atrocities and crimes committed by the Chinese government (which I am not going to list here since we ALL know about that). You are only showing ONE side of the argument here, you see, and you force students to accept them. What is that called? I recall a word ending with -washing.
3) You are saying there is another side to the Tiananmen Square incident on the fourth of June. True, but do you want to show the REAL side to the public? The fact IS that many students demonstrating were killed ruthlessly by the government. You keep talking about the other side. Well then what exactly is the other side? I'd like to see that. We are going to believe the side with factual evidence, and that side is the side where hundreds died because of a government that values her face more than hundreds of lives.
4) You were saying that there is no "democracy taste" in line 13 among the pan-democratic parties. I have very to say about that. Just consider who has made it through the legislation for the past 15 years.
5) You satirically say we should add the words "end one-party rule" to enhance national education. Unfortunately, you just stated the obvious. There is NO WAY a single party can represent the whole country. I am sorry but there is, indeed, no way. The logic is simple: The only party has no incentive to self-moderate. It can do whatever it likes to do. And, according to human nature, they would eventually revert to a government that abuses its rights to dictate the rights of the people which it does not like. It has perfect freedom to do that, and it WILL do that. There has been little to no exception on this.
And that is all I have to say about this. I am a politics idiot so my words really does not matter. But, standing on the side of my own conscience, here is my thoughts.
