Should it be described as a massacre? Did the money and tents donated by Hong Kong people to the students in Tiananmen Square prolong the movement? Did the People's Liberation Army have an alternative to using force after being blocked by students and civilians?
Could the bloody crackdown have been avoided if students had tried to compromise? Should we put the June 4 baggage behind us and move on to strive for improvements in prosperity and livelihoods?
These questions have been repeatedly raised in the lead-up to June 4 each year since 1989. If this year is an exception, it is only because the debate has been even more intense and divisive. And, intriguingly, some students have hit the headlines.
At RTHK's City Forum on Sunday, a leader of a local youth group became locked in a war of words with veteran democrat Szeto Wah and forum host Joseph Tse Chi-fung, who was one of the last journalists to leave the square on June 4, 1989.
Stanley Lui, convener of the Hong Kong Youth Development Network, argued that the formation of 'dare-to-die' squads, led by student leader Chai Ling , showed that protesters had armed teams to kill soldiers. The nature of the movement had also changed after 'external forces' provided cash and necessities to the hunger strikers in the square, he said.
University and secondary school students have raised similar issues of late. On Saturday, a secondary school student reportedly told a forum that students were manipulated by the United States to topple the Communist Party.
And last month, Ayo Chan Yi-ngok was removed as University of Hong Kong student union president in a referendum by students after he claimed that some of the 1989 student leaders had acted irrationally. He branded Ms Chai, chief commander of student protests in the square, a 'runaway' leader, claiming she was the first to flee before the crackdown.
