Hong Kong's Liberal Studies Curriculum: The Battleground for Political Power

Photocredit: SCMP

According to a recent South China Morning Post*, the compulsory Liberal Studies curriculum of the public education system in Hong Kong is under mounting pressure to adopt a more pro-Beijing stance.  Liberal Studies, a subject compulsory students in Hong Kong, advocates the nurturing of knowledge and skills the global citizen of the 21st century needs.  The idea was first mooted in the early 2000s and has since 2009 been one of four compulsory subjects, in the same ranks as Chinese Language and English language.  On any ordinary day, no one would decry the importance of such a subject which aims to help get students future-ready.  And as a response to the much criticised rote-learning mode endemic in the Hong Kong curriculum, it is surely the solution, not the problem.  So why the sudden shift in the Hong Kong Education Department's stance towards Liberal Studies?

  Well actually, not sudden at all.  There's always been a level of criticism from pro-Beijing politicians.  But the political climate in HK has become a minefield, more so since the Umbrella Movement in December 2014 (and Feb 2015).  Priscilla Leung, a hitherto pro-Liberal Studies HK Lawmaker, argues in Foreign Policy that while the subject equips HK youth with an awareness of the issues, the youth lack the necessary maturity and awareness to participate meaningfully in politics.  It has also been said that many Liberal Studies teachers have used the subject to advocate their own (oftentimes anti-Beijing) political beliefs, which defeats the diversity-orientated and balanced approach the curriculum preaches.  That may well be true since quite a number of Liberal Studies teachers were said to have participated in the Umbrella Movement.

Photocredit: MOE, Ngee Ann Primary School

Actually, in Singapore, we too have our own version of Liberal Studies.  At the Secondary School level (Sec 3-4), there's Social Studies which seeks to foster an interest in local and regional politics while at the Junior College level (17-18 years) there's General Paper and Project Work.  All are examinable subjects (i.e., taken seriously by Singaporeans), and both aim to foster critical thinking skills, global awareness and in general, prepare Singapore youth to be take their place in the world of tomorrow.  In recent years, Character and Citizen Education, as advocated by Ministry of Education led by Heng Swee Keat, also seeks to promote greater awareness of social and political issues, both locally and globally among Singapore youth.  I've taken a loom at the Liberal Studies curricula and the only real difference seems to be the fact that CCE is ultimately tied to Singapore's economic competitiveness, whereas Liberal Studies, is, well, Liberal Studies.  CCE by MOE was never fundamentally about creating a more politically informed and robust society.  Do you think the same concern would be true for the Singapore Government?  Would the Ministry of Education be worried that the increasing emphasis on 21st Century Core Competencies would politicise the youth of Singapore?  

Well,  in the first place, content in Singapore subjects is highly centralised and constantly regulated by the MOE Headquarters.  Unlike Liberal Studies which leaves a lot to the teacher, Singapore's MOE defines very clearly what the issues are and what the conclusions should be.  Critical deconstruction of racial and religious topics are unashamedly flagged to MOE teachers as too sensitive for classroom talk.  Issues like Human Rights, Political Freedom, Gender and Sexual inequality are rarely discussed.  If at all, Singapore would typically be painted in a positive light.  If negative, geopolitical constraints are usually trotted out to explain critical analysis needs to take a backseat.    I would say that teachers themselves are put through a rigorous selection process, weeding out ones with controversial ideas.  Let's not forget the fact that teachers are bounded by the Instructional Manual for Civil Servants in terms of airing their political views.  The appraisal system itself also seems to reward those who toe the line, with its emphasis on getting teachers to examine how they have contributed to National Education (i.e. officially endorsed views on politics, society and history).  I could go on and on about that...

Of course, I'm simplifying matters.   The explanation for the youth-led Occupy Central movement which brought the financial hub of Asia to its knees, and made the Central Government in Beijing lose so much face, cannot be reduced to the effects of one curriculum subject.  Multiple factors come into play, with geo-political and economic conditions of our milieu intersecting at the right time.  If Liberal Studies were to have taken place during the era of prosperity under British Colonisation, would the same have happened?  While back then, there wasn't necessarily more political autonomy, the British did allow a climate of intellectual freedom and political expression.  For a people who have tasted 'sugar water' how can you expect them to go back to 'untreated water'?  For what compelling reason would they willingly give up their sense of autonomy and agency?


To be sure, the Singapore government's been quite successful in keeping the economic and political impetus for such movements at bay. That's not even considering the legal constraints instituted the system has to prevent organisation or participation in such movements.  Most Singaporeans seem quite comfortable with leaving politics to the 'professionals', choosing  rather to go about their daily lives.  Periodically, Singaporeans are told that they shouldn't be so politically apathetic, but then, when they do they are told they don't understand the issues well.  The politicians from the ruling party may be right - judging by how xenophobic and silly local debates like the CPF issue.  But then, how could they understand when it's never really been openly and unabashedly debated in the first place?  Inevitably political maturity involves letting go of control, but who would want to?  I wouldn't.

But I do wonder.  If anything, at least in the HK situation, we have a sense that the critical thinking curriculum works with the students putting theory into action.  However poorly you think they understood the issues or applied their understanding, at least they did.  But tightly controlled Singapore, MOE and its teachers may never really know if whatever they preach about 21st Century Skills (e.g. critical thinking, awareness of local and global issues, etc) really works beyond the official line defined by civil servants? 

* For some reason, the link to the SCMP seems to be broken.  This alternative link goes to a political blog which saved that article.