Hong Kong Judicial Review On The Cancellation Of A DSE History Subject Question Was Dismissed, Judge’s Ruling Reprimanded Education Bureau’s Comments As An Intimidation, Considering That A “Strong Nation (Referring To China)” Could Not Be Hurt By An Exami…

(04 July) In this year Hong Kong Diploma Secondary Education exam History compulsory questions, candidates were asked to comment on whether "Japan brought more good than harm to China" between 1900 and 1945. After controversy and repeated public reprimands by the Education Bureau (EDB), Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) eventually announced the cancellation of the related question. A History subject candidate this year filed an application for judicial review in the High Court earlier, seeking to overturn the EDB's decision on disqualifying the question. Mr Justice Russell Coleman said the EDB's public criticism was almost certainly political and threatening, but the court could not confirm that it was an abuse of power, and the HKEAA did not violate any procedures in making the decision, so it ruled that the candidates lost the case and had to pay legal fees to the HKEAA.

Judge Coleman's went to great lengths to refute Hong Kong government's criticism of the examination question, stating explicitly that he did not think that "strong nations" such as the Central People’s Government, or "the powerful people" such as the Chinese people would genuinely feel threatened by the answers of few hundreds Hong Kong secondary school candidates; Judge Coleman also quoted the famous saying "Four legs good, two legs bad" from the famous "Animal Farm", in which he pointed out that he did not want students to be brainwashed and to only accept the views force-fed to them without question.

In his 155-page verdict, Judge Coleman said that the ultimate decision maker was the HKEAA, not the court, and that the HKEAA Council members would consider many issues involving academic judgement and different dimensions in making their decisions. Judge Coleman was not surprised by the suggestion that the government was trying to prevent anyone from expressing views that differed from the 'party line' in this case, or that the HKEAA had been 'bullied' into cancelling the questions, but there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations. On the contrary, he said that it was evident that there had been careful and thorough discussions among professionals within HKEAA as to whether or not to cancel the examination questions while considering different views and opinions. Therefore, he could not see any breach of procedure or other unfairness present by the HKEAA.

Saying Yeung Yun-hung's remarks were threatening

The applicant claimed that the Government was "bullying" HKEAA by exerting constant pressure, causing HKEAA to mistakenly take into account the pressure from the Government in deciding to cancel the examination question. Coleman believed that the Secretary for Education Yeung Yun-hung's repeated public comments were indeed threatening, he pointed out that whether to cancel the examination questions is an internal affair of the HKEAA, but Yeung had clearly and publicly stated that the most effective way to solve problems or disputes is to cancel the question. Even though the EDB said it was only a "request", Yeung later said publicly that the problem with the question was obvious and that the EDB would consider what further action it would take in response to the decision by the HKEAA, and that there was "no room for discussion". Coleman pointed out that if intimidation was not Yeung’s purpose, then it was “an unfortunate choice of word”. In response to Chief Executive Carrie Lam's public criticism, he described it as “an unfortunate choice of word" as well, as Carrie Lam only said that there was a "professional error" in the question and that she would intervene if necessary, which was not an attempt to threaten.

Coleman believed that these public criticisms from the government had a certain level of power, especially when the EDB was represented on the HKEAA Council and could "speak up".

The type and intensity of comments made by very senior public officials in public statements may be perceived as some kind of external pressure. Without doubt, these statements are intended in part to encourage a particular public viewpoint and to attract others to express a similar viewpoint. He said the EDB's public criticism was almost certainly politically motivated, but the court could not confirm whether it was an abuse of power.

Coleman accepted the claim that HKEAA's cancellation of the questions was based on professional and academic considerations, rather than political ones, saying that there was no evidence that the board members had discarded their professional judgment in making the decision. In his view, the EDB did have the power to oversee the teaching and curriculum development of secondary schools in Hong Kong and might therefore have an opinion on whether the question deviated from the curriculum objectives and whether the average candidate was capable of handling it.

Judge: (I) do not think the examination question is incompatible with universal values.

Coleman thought that most candidates would come to the "correct" conclusion that Japan had done more harm than good to China during the period 1900-1945, but he had to admit that some candidates might not have sufficient knowledge and ability to apply objective facts and arguments. Yet, he did not think that a strong government like that in the Mainland China or strong people like the Chinese would be threatened by a subtle historical attitude for examination purposes, or even the expression and advocate of views that were not shared by the vast majority of Chinese people. He pointed out that reasonably, anyone rational would assume that candidates who submitted poor answers would and should get low marks. Coleman said that the removal of a particular sub-question in an examination paper in a particular subject would give the impression that the guidelines for removal could not be "general guidelines".

On the EDB's side, it was pointed out that public interest would be seriously affected if the examination questions were not abolished, and that it would introduce a new perspective, incompatible with universal values, to measure Japan's aggression and the "good" it has brought, so that generations of teachers and students will learn the nation's history from an unacceptable perspective and discard the most important human values when viewing historical events. Coleman stated explicitly that from his personal point of view, the examination question was not incompatible with universal values. He stated that on the contrary, weighing the pros and cons, or the good and bad, referring to historical events was consistent with universal values, and this was in line with the objectives of the History curriculum and the marking scheme, which required students to think from multiple perspectives. 

The Judge hoped Hong Kong students would not merely shout "Four legs good, two legs bad" when they encountered dissent.

Coleman said the existence of a "mainstream consensus" did not preclude proper debate in a meaningful way. The fact is that a mainstream consensus comes from a proper debate. In his view, the ideal way for students to use their critical thinking skills to come to their own conclusions, rather than simply accepting without question the viewpoints that they had been force-fed. He quoted George Orwell's "Four legs good, two legs bad" from his famous “Animal Farm” to point out that students should not be brainwashed into not accepting any dissent.

Coleman said that the question format involved did not elicit any "right" or "wrong" answers, and that the question format aimed to promote an ability that the general public lacked in today's society. This deficiency is not only found in Hong Kong, but has been quite evident even in recent times. In the rush to the extremes of viewpoint, many people seem to have lost the ability or willingness to see or consider any middle ground, or to understand the nuances of opinion.

People often exist in their own "echo chambers," reinforcing existing views and preferring slogans that obscure the complexity of many issues. Rants and gimmicks have replaced intellectual debate; The willingness to tolerate others' perspectives, to seek understanding, to participate, to find more common ground, is in decline, and civilized society is poorer in this regard.

Source: Stand News

https://bit.ly/396yv12

#AbusePower #HistoryQuestion #HKDSE #EducationSystem #HongKongCourt #Threatening #AnimalFarm #Brainwashing #HongKongStudents