Thursday, 14 August 2014

Mr. P: Leung Man-tao, The Most "Aloof" Scoundrel in The Academia

Leung Man-tao, The Most "Aloof" Scoundrel in The Academia
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by P某 (Mr. P)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/08-14-2014/18338/ 

Translator's note: Ex-situ 離地: a concept introduced by Wan Chin (opposed to in-situ 在地), referring to certain members in the middle class who are "aloof and detached as being completely unaware of the plight of mortals and ignorant of the grassroots' keen concern" [Quote from Hansard, 7 Apr 2011 p8927] (usually holding foreign countries' passports too [well, I believe BN(O) doesn't count]), like John Tsang.
Leung Man-tao. (From ThePaper.cn)
I mentioned the difference between "discrimination" and "despisement" before, but I'd like to repeat:

Discrimination means a kind of differential treatment based on one's physical features, race, language, gender or disability. For example, an employer tends to hire a male worker instead of a female worker with the same working ability required in the job description - that is discrimination.

Despisement is the abhorrence and scorn towards certain people who cross the line of social norms or do not obey public order (often unspoken). For example, a mainland Chinese shows his private parts in the public is an abhorrence out of despisement.

Again, Leung Man-tao neglects local problems when being interviewed by mainland Chinese media, "Three years ago, there exists no problem for Chinese tourists speaking Mandarin in Hong Kong. You could see Hongkongers have difficulties speaking Mandarin, but they had good attitudes back then. But things have changed. I can't say all Hongkongers are having bad attitudes towards mainland Chinese, but there surely is a increasing number of people doing so. You will have this sense even you just be in Hong Kong once."

He added, "I think the real problem lies in the middle class. Hong Kong middle class's discrimination against mainland Chinese is different from racial discrimination in other countries."

To disprove his notion, first of all, will there be differential treatment when Chinese merchants are doing business in Hong Kong? Like any other HKers, they just simply need approval from Companies Registry. Will there be worse treatment when Chinese tourists come to Hong Kong? Surely not. They are treated as common tourists. Will there be differential treatment when Chinese students study in Hong Kong? They are just as any other overseas students. Passing examination can guarantee their seats. Will Chinese immigrants be barred from getting welfare permanently? Once they pass the means test, they are qualified to apply for public housing, medical welfares and free education. Our Court of Final Appeal even order the Social Welfare Department to provide CSSA to those Chinese new immigrants who have just come for a year. The treatment to Chinese is the same with tourists coming from other countries, not to mention their treatment could nearly be the same with that to Hongkongers. What makes it count as a kind of discrimination?

Does our dissatisfaction to Chinese come from "discrimination"? Of course not! The general public has a bad feeling towards Chinese tourists, Chinese students ("Hong Kong drifters") or Chinese merchants - not because they are from China, but rather, on their behaviour.

Jumping queues, urinating and defecating in public, speaking aloud, berating HKers follows by reminders of public orders, littering ... All they're doing is to challenge the city's capacity and HKers' bottom line. We, HKers, aim to maintain the public order, on one hand, because Hong Kong is our home; and on the other hand we do it out of our instinct. People are interconnected with invisible links, and the society is operated according to these links - basic rules and consensus.

Putting public order aside then, peeing in the loo must stand for no exception belonging as a kind of human instinct, right? Chinese traditional culture emphasises righteousness, courtesy, integrity and honour. Normally, excluding people who regard themselves as animals or orient themselves without self-awareness, everyone will follow the public order. To those who violate it, the abhorrence against is by no means discrimination! First, the hatred does not result from any kind of "cultural difference"; second, it follows not any genetic or acquired factor; third, these misbehaviours are avoidable.

Leung Man-tao claimed that the situation for the mainland tourists' disruption of public orders is rather mild and there will always be two or three problematic tourists in hundreds of thousands of tourists. In his mind, such seriousness is a product of media exaggerating reports aiming to incite the public sentiment. But I have a question: if there were two or three Lam-Kowk-wai-like rapists, two or three Lam-Kor-wan-like serial killers and two or three Yip-Kai-foon-like gangsters per day, would you say the public order remains fine in Hong Kong? if we deduce according to Leung's logic, police force would be wasted just to arrest one Teeth Dog (Yip Kai-foon) back then!

There is a seriousness existed in such problems as they are not just one time. Chinese repetitively disregard our public order, that's more than a problem already! No commentary on social issues should adapt sampling as the centre of the judgment. 

What happens in Hong Kong surely doesn't serve as an exclusive case. Or else, why are foreign countries too, condemning mainland Chinese of ruining public orders? And why are mainland Chinese always the target being charged? After all, is it the world "discriminating" against mainland Chinese collectively on purpose, or there are some people truly disregarding rules and orders, thus getting themselves retribution?

Leung Man-tao aims his spear at the middle class HKers of "discriminating" Chinese people the most; but my over-60 mother, who did not graduate in primary school, feels as well, furious about the mainland Chinese's misconducts! What do you know about the local grassroots' livelihood, Leung? Job opportunities, if not all, are taken by cheap labours from mainland China. Do you know there is a considerate amount of people who couldn't safeguard their living just because of that? How exactly you form such a conclusion towards the grassroot, huh? The major woe stuck the life of the grassroot is IVS - small groceries and "Cha chaan tengs" are closed, price level are soaring, public resources are occupied - do you actually know the cruel reality in front of them, Leung?

Isn't it meaningless for you to choose a small bunch of "i-bank elites" who had studied in English-speaking countries, live in Mid-levels and seldom go to Mong Kok, to represent Hong Kong? Why not you look into those cases like the loud and noisy mainland Chinese aunties shouting on the train or "two or three" IVS mainland tourists who pee in the public? Ex-situ as you are, you live inside the box. Instead, you consider yourself as a blue blood "intellectual" who embraces universal values. Working along with leftist-morons, you somehow think you're superior in promoting peace! But let me remind that you're still living in a Hong Kong governed by the Communist Party.

Or maybe you're so lucky to be able to find two or three elites in the country where people disregard public orders, and respect them a lot. Then why don't you simply stay there? For you, Hong Kong is too dangerous to live in.

No comments:

Post a Comment