Changes to history textbooks offer lessons that must be learned
A row over a review of history textbooks led by a government-appointed panel has turned into a political controversy. The scepticism over the rationale behind the suggested changes could have been dispelled had a more transparent approach been taken by officials
The choice of words for history textbooks can be a sensitive issue. When handled improperly, it can easily turn into a political controversy, as shown in the row over a review of history textbooks led by a government-appointed panel.
Although some proposed changes are not unjustified, officials have done a bad job in explaining the rationale behind them. Lessons must be learned.
That Hong Kong was returned to China by the British 20 years ago is a historical fact beyond dispute. But in a recent review of history textbooks, the panellists took issue with the words used by some publishers.
Phrases like “China taking back Hong Kong”, “China insisted on taking back Hong Kong’s sovereignty” and “the transfer of sovereignty” were deemed inappropriate.
The view was shared by Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung. He said China never recognised the treaties signed with the British, nor had it given up sovereignty over Hong Kong.
Other questionable terms include the Communist’s “one-party dictatorship” and “the city is located south of China”. The latter, according to Yeung, may be misunderstood as stating that Hong Kong is not part of China.
