Forum Letter Replies
MOE Obtains Permission from Authors to Publish or Edit their Works
We refer to Dr Chua Chee Lay’s letter, “If the upper beam is not straight, the lower one will also be crooked (上梁不正下梁歪)”, published in Lianhe Wanbao on 27 February 2010.
Dr Chua noted that a Primary 2 Higher Chinese textbook did not attribute one of the poems to the author and even edited it without acknowledgement.
We wish to clarify that in the production of our instructional materials, MOE works closely with the publishers to obtain permission from the authors to reproduce or edit their works to cater to the learning needs of our students. The authors of the works featured in the Primary 2 Higher Chinese textbook have given permission for their works to be included or adapted.
Acknowledgement of the authors whose works are included in the textbook is made on the ‘Acknowledgements Page’. For greater clarity, in future editions of the textbook, MOE will also indicate the page numbers where the original or edited works of the authors are published.
Director, Curriculum Planning and Development
“A Crooked Upper Beam will Lead to Crooked Lower Beams” (Dr Chua Chee Lay, WB, 27/2)
If textbooks used by the Ministry of Education cannot even set a good example by showing the least respect to authors and their works, how can we expect the students who use them to understand the value of originality and to respect intellectual property rights?
As I was skimming through the current Higher Chinese Language textbook used by Primary 2 students, I was pleasantly surprised to find that Twilight (《夜色》)—a children’s poem that I had used in my Children’s Literature university course for many years—has been included within this formal syllabus textbook. I was thrilled because this will allow primary school students studying Higher Chinese to be exposed to, appreciate and even recite and memorise a wonderful piece of poetry.
However, a closer look revealed that the textbook editor had made some changes to the poem. The original text reads: “我从前胆子很小很小,天一黑就不敢往外瞧; 妈妈把勇敢的故事讲了又讲,可我一看窗外心就乱跳。。。。。。 爸爸晚上偏要拉我去散步，原来花草都像白天一样微笑; 从此再黑再黑的夜晚，我也能看见小鸟怎样在月光下睡觉。。。。。。(Translation: I used to be very timid, and would not dare to look out after night fell; Mother repeated stories of bravery, but my heart would not stop thumping whenever I look out of the window… yet Father insisted on bringing me out for an evening walk, and I saw plants smiling as they would during the day. Henceforth, no matter how thick the shroud of night is, I will always see how birds rest in the moonlight…)”. In the textbook, the last section was changed into: “…and I saw stars smiling down at me. Henceforth, I no longer fear the darkness of the night, and I always venture out to observe flowers sleeping in the moonlight.”
It is debatable whether the amended poem is more appropriate for children. This issue involves the psychology of language in children, the aesthetic sense in children’s poetry and local linguistic practices. Therefore, I will leave this issue that requires a lengthy discussion for another time. What I cannot accept though, is the fact that the textbook editor did not make any statement concerning the amendment. Worse yet, the name of the poet was also left out. Those unfamiliar with the poem may mistake it as a creative piece by the editor, resulting in the credit going to someone undeserving.
Although the original poet Ke Yan （柯岩） is credited on the last page of the textbook along with a list of individuals and organisations, I wonder how many truly know the identity of the author and the reason the author has been credited for providing “enthusiastic guidance and support”. Some may guess that the work of the author has been included in the textbook, but which one? These details are left unexplained. It is no wonder that users of the textbook, including some teachers, are confused.
I do not think primary school textbooks should be filled with information on authors, historical backgrounds and theories on themes and motifs. However, leaving out the names of authors while using their works is simply unacceptable. These works are the fruits of their hard labour and we have no right to force anonymity onto them.
If textbooks used by the Ministry of Education cannot even set a good example by showing the least respect to authors and their works, how can we expect the students who use them to understand the value of originality and to respect the intellectual property rights?