Students' Good Work 2020-2021

 

I am writing to express my feelings about your September 3 editorial “Separation of powers row shows need for checks and balances”. The latest statement from Chief Executive Carrie Lam – “There is no separation of powers in Hong Kong” – has become the talk of the town and stirred up heated debate. As a regular reader of your newspaper, I am writing to express my immense dismay at that statement. Lam was backing up Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung who said there was no separation of powers, whether before or after 1997. He also said it was up to publishers to delete “separation of powers” from liberal studies textbooks. As a history student, I am deeply disappointed.

 

In the early 20th century, the structure of Hong Kong’s government was already formed by the British. There was a governor, a legislature and a judiciary. Although the governor held most of the power at that time, I remember my history textbook saying Hong Kong had an independent justice system, and that the executive authorities and the legislature seldom interfered with the courts. These three powers were continuously developed before 1997.

 

The British government even put forward democratic reform proposals for Hong Kong, and Hong Kong residents’ way of life was to remain unchanged for 50 years, as mentioned in the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

 

I am able to remember all this clearly because this is basic knowledge of history.

Hong Kong has long been criticised as a “cultural desert”, where cultural development is severely lagging behind that of our counterparts in Asia. I agree with this criticism, as the Hong Kong education system does not encourage students to think deeper. Students are spoon-fed with what is required for exams. The current turn of events is perfect proof of this.

 

It is obvious that the Hong Kong government is going to inculcate into students the version of history that suits them. They want to make sure that teenagers in the future won’t spot the Hong Kong government changing democracy for autocracy.

 

However, the government, schools and teachers have an obligation to guide bewildered juveniles by getting out the correct information and message. They should not change or delete passages and cause misconceptions about the structure of Hong Kong’s government.

 

Youngsters are the wealth of our society and each one of us has the responsibility to ensure they receive a proper education. Only with concerted efforts can we put an end to the distortion of values and protect the future.

 

Sammi Lee, Kwun Tong

 

I was troubled to read your report on a study saying “four in five needy Hong Kong families can’t afford a computer for children’s e-learning”.

 

The third wave of the coronavirus has caused the second prolonged suspension of school this year. To prevent the spread of coronavirus, all students have again been forced to have online lessons at home. This poses a lot of difficulties for the low-income families that can’t afford the tools for e-learning at home. I was shocked to learn that as many as 80 per cent of such families do not own a computer or tablet and that about one-fifth cannot buy Wi-fi either.

 

As it is, learning online without face-to-face communication with teachers has already affected students’ ability to absorb knowledge. If some children do not even have proper tools for e-learning, and may need to share their parents’ mobile phones with siblings to get online, the situation is indeed dire.

 

It was appalling to find nearly 60 per cent of the parents said the schools didn’t offer them any help, and only about 20 per cent reported that schools lent out devices or distributed mobile data cards. The complex application process is believed to be a reason for some schools not bothering to apply for assistance for needy students.

 

The government’s assistance programme is well-intended, yet its effectiveness is unexpectedly low. It would be advisable to lower the eligibility criteria, so more needy students are covered. Directly offering the subsidies to them, instead of depending on the school authorities to apply on their behalf, could be a way to cut the red tape. The assistance policy can then be as effective as intended.

 

Daisy Ip, Lohas Park