Co-hosted by Kitty Ho Suet-ying, Kay Lam Chi-yan
Translated by Chen-t'ang, Kalmarr Lam (partly)
How do you define a Hongkonger?
No doubt that Wan Chin, the leader of city-state movement, is the focus in this couple of weeks. He, who criticized the candlelight vigil of Tian'anmen Massacre and mourning Li Wangyang, a Chinese social activist who was passed away a year ago, was then criticized on the Internet. But there is still room for in-depth discussion.
Wan Chin started the discussion of the identity of Hongkongers in his book Hong Kong City-state Discourse (香港城邦論). No matter is Wan Chin correct or not, but the identity of Hongkongers will definitely be one of the important issues. In fact, such controversy was observed in Taiwan. We will all be witnesses of an important social change.
Raees Baig is a local ethnic minority (EM) scholar. No matter in the discourse of 'Greater China' side or 'Localists' side, few voices are heard from the EM side, and she'll be a mouthpiece of them.
There is insufficient room to discuss issues in public, and often it becomes a mess when there are 'unrestrained' discussion online. The interview programme of Pentoy aims at creating a room where both parties can really TALK, and have an in-depth discourse with our hosts.
Therefore we have invited Wan Chin and Raees Baig to discuss the question, with our hosts Kitty Ho and Kay Lam: How do you define a Hongkonger? How to protect the minority?
We do not put any restrictions as usual, as long as we can handle. The interview is really long, hope you will like it. (Translator's crying......) And we hope that we may provide some points and clues for readers to ponder over. We hereby thank our hosts and participants.
Chin, the author of Hong Kong City-state Discourse, who likes talking about the 'Chinese orthodoxy' (中華道統), but stays away from 'China'; while Baig, a young female EM, whose raw nerves are touched by localists' discourse. With many online supporters, Chin is an advocate of Realpolitik, while Baig is a scholar safeguarding the rights of EM with universal values ─ these two thoughts seems to be irrelevant, and these two interviewees have not met each other before. Their viewpoints might vary, but they have in-depth study in ethnic issues.
We invite them to be here, talking about questions yet to be answered by Chin: How do you define a Hongkonger? How do a Chinese-majority city state ─ Hong Kong ─ protect the rights of EM?
Before the discussion begins, we invite Wan Chin introducing his two books: Hong Kong City-state Discourse and Hong Kong Remnants Discourse (香港遺民論). His main points are:
(1) CCP is the culprit of damaging Chinese culture, and suppresses Hongkongers in the name of national interests, nationalism and China-HK integration
(2) His solutions for (1) is: It is a must to change HK to a city-state temporarily, and to establish a Chinese Federation with Taiwan and mainland China once a democratized China is formed. Although the sense of 'cultural China' is quite strong among Hongkongers, but when we face such a party-state, we have to deal with local issues, and establish sense of nativeness, and temporarily giving up the identity as a Chinese. It is not feasible nor safe to treat the democracy of Hong Kong as a part of democracy of China: when Hongkongers are more and more concerned about the politics on the mainland side, the CCP has more 'excuses' to intervene in Hong Kong.
(3) As to the practice of his city-state theory, Chin emphasized a lot on Realpolitik. In his opinion, Hong Kong must resort to ethnic politics and local interests in order to fight against CCP and be a city-state. Local interests is not only a necessity against the CCP, but also a principle in allocating resources when democracy is practised. Chin thinks that concept of 'universal values' is rather vague, and can only be a foundation of politics and law institution, but cannot serve as a principle in allocating resources. So when there are universal suffrage, local interests will be the greatest consideration of resources allocation.
The problem Chin addressed is the suppression to Hong Kong by the CCP. We do not disagree at first, and it was initially a peaceful talk. Yet Baig started a debate as she does not agree the logical order from (1) to (2), and from (2) to (3).
The discourse begins from: Who are the remnants of Hong Kong? What are local interests?
Who are remnants of Hong Kong? - Between sense and sensibility
The term "remnants" is from Wan Chin's Hong Kong Remnants Discourse . It refers to the Chinese people which were left behind by colonial government. Those people have the concept of "Cultural China", however, it is different from the ethnicity of mainlanders ─ the Chinese culture of Hongkongers is mainly derived from Guangdong. Some migrants came to Hong Kong before the Qing Dynasty, whereas some came after 1949, when the CCP took over mainland China. Under the rule of the colonial government, the sense of belonging and the awareness of being a world citizen have been developed. Besides those who come from Guangdong, there are some migrants from other regions, such as American, British, as well as Eurasian and South Asian, which came along with the foreign rule, and the overseas Chinese back from Southeast Asia. By this Hong Kong Remnants Discourse, I would like to discuss what cultural traditions they brought here and conserved, and what role this tradition can they play under the modern democratic regime.
After defining remnants, Chin was asked whether Baig, whose born and raised in Hong Kong, with Pakistani father and Hongkonger mother, a remnant.
Chin: She is a remnant, but not a 'mainstream' one.
Hosts: How do you define 'mainstream'? Is it based on amount of people or other standards?
Chin: Amount of people, the culture of ethnic Chinese (華人) or showing one's willingness of integrating into ethnic Chinese culture, for example, writing Chinese characters, speaking Chinese. If one do so, I would call him/her a remnant. Culturally speaking, I do not resort to cultural dominance, yet in Hong Kong, ethnic Chinese culture remains overwhelmingly dominant in Hong Kong. We cannot say that in Hong Kong, ethnic Chinese citizens are overwhelmingly dominant, as some of them are 'fake' ones ─ some being pro-Beijing, some being pro-America, some talking about universal values, some prohibiting their offspring speaking Cantonese, and so on. Moreover, ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong had not fully acknowledge its own culture, the dignity of culture has not been established.
Having different viewpoints, Baig: First of all we have to define ethnic Chinese culture. Everyone in this room are ethnic Chinese, except me. Do you think yourself embracing Chinese culture? If ethnic Chinese do not necessarily embrace Chinese culture, of course I could say I am a remnant of the Hong Kong city-state, as 'ethnic Chinese culture is the "mainstream" culture of the Hong Kong city-state' becomes invalid. Besides, for identity issue, we often argue the definition of a Hongkonger, but the identity of Hongkonger remains blurred to EM. I think that it was arbitrary to define what is a 'Hongkonger', and moreover Professor Chin said many Hongkongers are not so active in taking part in ethnic Chinese culture. Can I say I am a Hongkonger when I celebrate Lunar New Year or eat glutinous rice dumpling during Dragonboat Festival? These standards are vague, so I would not define in such way. In my mind, that the most important thing for building up Hongkongers'
self-identity is: bringing everyone to discuss public policy and social
issue. Every day, Hong Kong people are discussing the issue of 'doubly non-negative residents' (both parents are not residents in HK, hereinafter DNRs), the issue of foreign domestic helpers gaining right of abode or the livelihood issues. If I could participate in such discussion, I will feel that I am a Hongkonger irrespective of race. In the entire discourse of City-state Discourse, even ourselves cannot define what is ethnic Chinese culture, or what is Hongkonger. If we think that Hong Kong embraced a set of culture different from that of mainland China or the UK, then we have to point out and define the core meaning of such culture.
It is always difficult to clearly define what constitutes a community's sense of identity. Chin admitted that even a folklorist like him feels hard to give a clear definition of Hongkonger and 'Chinese-race' (Zhonghua Minzu, 中華民族), and therefore there are grey areas, that's why nation and culture are mystic. Chin says he has another definition for 'sense of nativeness': Baig's proposal is with sense, mine is with sensibility and without much thinking. He then straightly stated: 'Those who will defend local interests are Hongkongers.'
What are 'local interests'?: Between local and universal values
He again interpreted: Every time we confront the CCP for rights, we resort to universal values; but after democracy is successfully practiced, do we solely talk about universal values? Universal values advocated by the Human Rights Covenant of the UN are, of course, the elementary values of a modern society, but these values cannot become standards in devising and enforcing policies. Priority must be set to deal with conflicts of interests when judgments are made. Many DNRs are coming to Hong Kong and ruining the population structure of Hong Kong, commercializing the Northeast NT, encouraging more Shenzhen people buying more Hong Kong properties, attempting in blurring the border between HK and China. Who are in support of these are not Hongkongers, irrespective of race and motives. Neither is the fundamentals of 'local interests' democracy nor human rights and freedom, but the consensus of defending community rights. Take the US as an example: when there are terrorist attack in the US, who stand on the US army side are Americans.
We might ask some more questions: when the US sends troops to Iraq, some newspapers in UK opposed their country participating on the grounds of humanitarianism. Does this constitute a breach of 'local interests'?
Chin: They are defending the local interests, since involving in warfare will exhaust the country's resources.
Hosts: Those commentators, like Leung Man-tao and Fred Lam, do not support a community struggle (族群鬥爭). Are they defending the local interests?
Chin (answering decisively): I have already made it clear: they are the traitor of Hong Kong.
Here, we find that not only his term 'local interests' can be interpreted in many ways, but also a relative concept. If there are resource allocation problems between other parties and local interests during discussion of certain matters (like DNRs and parallel traders), we can clearly define what is NOT of local interests; but when the matter is an internal problem involving different interests groups (like minimum wage, or the UBWs of NT indigenous inhabitants), 'local interests' can hardly be a principle for resource allocation. As 'local interests' is the core of city-state discourse, it has to be clearly defined in order to be rested on during devising a policy.
Baig (heckled): I wish to know what is local interests indeed; if we cannot define what is local interests, then neither can I participate, and nor think I'm a guest in today's interview.
Chin (noncommittal): Never mind. I can do nothing if you do not participate.
Baig (a bit irritated): Mr Chin, I do not want to call you as a professor. (Translator's note: Wan Chin is called by Baig at the beginning as 'professor'. Chin gained his moniker 'Nation's teacher' (國師) due to Leung Man-tao's column)
Chin: As you like.
Baig (irritated): Simply you are xenophobic. You just said you do not mind whether I could participate in discussion, simply because I asked you to define 'local interests' but you failed to! Those 'leftist-morons', as you said, are not in the establishment and cannot be obstacles of policy. (Editors' note: Chin once said the localists cannot participate in devising policy, so such 'discriminative views' cannot be counted in) The problem is only that whether we can be inclusive of different opinions. Singapore is facing the same situation, they do think Singapore belongs to Singaporeans, so they do not welcome PRC residents living there. The society reacted vehemently to the Singaporean administration, but the entire discussion was halted ─ elitism takes its place. Singaporeans have a sense of superiority, so they do not accept mainland Chinese. They think they are civil-minded but the PR Chinese are not. So, 'community politics' (族群政治) is indeed elitism.
Chin refuted: Don't you think that what I have said is based on facts to a certain degree? The man would be questionable if he derails our discussion of
should we block DNRs and revise the Basic Law. Resorting to the term 'locust' is to force our
government to adopt a tough approach, so as to restrict entry of mainlanders. Moreover, DNR expectant mothers did not receive good upbringing: they born their children and go back to mainland China. We might not know when will they return, probably when there are war and economic downturn. Or maybe they are just exploiting the advantages of local education system. When the society force the government to take action by complaining the 'locust', some people criticized me of racial discrimination. They do not see the whole picture of politics. Their knowledge and experience may enable them to comprehend the facts. If the political reality of Hong Kong is that the mainlanders infringing the local interests, causing insufficient resources in Hong Kong, then a further question besides defining 'local interests': how far would the pursuance of protecting local interests get us?
Plurality of the Hong Kong city-state and the rights of ethnic minorities (EM)
Chin mentioned very little about the EM in Hong Kong Remnants Discourse, but clearly pointed out that the differences between EM and local ethnic Chinese is little, or even closely to none; on the contrary, although most Hongkongers and mainland Chinese belongs to Chinese, but they are not of the same community. As to the reason why EM are closer to Chinese, Chin said that the EM 'do as the Hongkongers do', for example striving in learning Cantonese, foreign domestic helpers "humbly asked for the right of abode" to the HK government. He 'appreciated' this a lot. Yet when Chin thinks EM are part of us, at the same time Hong Kong is a city with a majority of ethnic Chinese, so how should we protect the rights of EM?
Chin thinks that neither is Hong Kong an empire or eligible to be an empire. No matter how they express their stance, Neo-nazism will not appear, but rather a coward nationalism with racial discrimination. He said, 'EM might face oppression from resources, society and the government. But these oppression are not from us, the anti-CCP side. You can go for fighting rights for the EM, I will not oppose it. I am not the government, I am just confronting the CCP by the cultural power.
We agreed that there are no tradition of empire in Hong Kong; yet we might think 'oppression' out of the box: the oppressor might not be an empire, the way of oppression might not be tangible violence. Marginalization is a kind of oppression, and as Baig said, EM cannot participate in the discussion of social policy due to various reasons. Those who are excluded from the institution and the mainstream society will be prone to powerlessness, and they will be more timid in participation (Details in: Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference).
EM have to make compromises, reflecting the unjust and disguised oppression of the whole system. On the one hand Chin denounced the oppression placed on Hong Kong by the CCP, on the other he took no count of the oppression placed on EM by local mainstream. We have a doubt, isn't it the pot calling the kettle black?
In short, if he considers Hong Kong's confrontation against the CCP's cultural hegemony being reasonable, does it mean that EM are able to use the same reason to confront against the mainstream? If we need to avoid erring in an CCP way, that is, oppressing minorities by mainstream, we cannot also resort to "EM doing what the Hongkongers do" to absolve the oppression to EM. Ask Chin in another way: what is cultural diversity (or multi-culture, 多元文化)?
Chin does not define plurality (多元化) as tolerance: We can exclude certain opinions on the basis of civilization and 共和, as to generate a 'mainstream' culture. My understanding of plurality refers to the constructive interaction between the majority and the minority. Although each voice has its right to compete, but eventually there will be a mainstream voice, which will become the principle of devising a policy. As there are different priority for different policies, and limited resources are available, we have to consider the mainstream interests first during devising policy; if we only emphasize plurality, we cannot devise policy. Especially after dual universal suffrage, Hong Kong has to face the problem of resource allocation ─ different communities will compete for benefits when they want votes. Before suffrage, we often talk about universal values; but after suffrage, benefits will stymie the way for resource allocation. Of course, at least we have to protect the elementary rights of the minority. For example, in the DNRs case, we cannot treat DNRs and Hongkongers equally.
Baig thinks tolerance is the foundation of plurality and democratic deliberation: We often see that the Policy Address asked foreigners to integrate into the Hong Kong society, but this is wrong. Oneself could not integrate, but a inclusive society can help these people integrate. That's why we are asking whether Hong Kong provides such an environment where everybody in Hong Kong can participate in the discussion of social usses. If everyone only listens to the mainstream opinions, the social plurality will disintegrate. Besides, I think that you have pointed your finger wrongly. Of course I do think everyone has to protect the interests of Hong Kong, but the DNRs issue is a policy problem, but not related to a community problem.
Chin (straightforward): Some people argued that I am a Han-chauvinist, but that's the only choice. When plurality hurts the interests of Hong Kong, I think that we do not need to take count of them. You may say, but the doer do not have to listen and consider during devising policy. It is useless. When the anti-CCP movement and city-state autonomy become successful, and we can show the mainstream of Hongkongers with dignity, plurality can have its own place; but when these are not yet successful, I will exclude you, as you are not in line with me. I'm frank, and not afraid of offending others.
How 'real' is Chin's Realpolitik?
Chin keeps saying the term 'Realpolitik' over and over. The origin of 'Realpolitik' is from Prussia in the 19th century (present-day Germany). The Minister President of Prussia, Otto von Bismarck (also known as Iron Chancellor), proposed the national interests shall be the highest consideration of administration and diplomacy, unbounded by moral ethics or ideology in order to achieve the unification of Deutscheland (Germany). Learnt from Germany, Chin said Realpolitik is a reasonable way to protect local interests, so the rights and interests of EM cannot be taken into account.
Hosts: You said your thoughts are from Realpolitik, so do you think that Realpolitik is incorrect in nature but a necessary evil?
Chin: No, as this is based on facts: most mainlanders do not behave themselves. And when the resources are insufficient, the government is side with mainlanders! Hongkongers have no choice but to scold them, until the government is scared. Restricting bootlegging infant formula (RBIF) is one of the consequence that we scold the government. Early to 1998, I already mentioned the concept of 'remnants'. After the change of sovereignty, we have to find our cultural identity to maintain the cultural consensus, aiming at a better governance. We must say this. If I don't, the CCP will do; if the CCP will do, what would happen? Everybody's clear. If I don't, and some sociologists do, can their discourse confront the CCP's? Absolutely not.
But if Hong Kong autonomy has to succeed, the prerequisite is the approval of CCP, who is afraid of Hong Kong being an "independent political entity" (IPE) and willing to sacrifice at a heavy price. In the eye of CCP, no matter 'city-state autonomy' or 'becoming an independent country' represent that Hong Kong will become an IPE, which will hardly be allowed. Even Hongkongers are in concerted efforts in separating from the rule by China, will we become another Chechenya as we are in the proximity of a strong neighbour? Even 7 million are in concerted efforts, can we confront 1.3 billion? How feasible is Chin's Realpolitik?
Chin: This is a realpolitik 博奕. CCP leaders are realists, if they feel it's favourable, they would do so. In the last 6 decades, no one proposed Hong Kong being an independent country, and now I say so, you can see am I in jeopardy? The Basic Law stated that Beijing has to give democracy to Hong Kong. Whether you will fight for it, Beijing will let HK democratize. They will be the unfavourable side if they still procrastinate. If various conflicts of benefits, people started to know the importance of a council, and who is really representing the people. Like in the Sichuan earthquake fundraising [in 2013], people know there are discrepancies between what they feel and the voting result, and know who to support in the coming election. Citizens might not participate in discussion so often, but the voting trend will change whenever confrontation occurs.
As to whether Hong Kong will become another Chechenya, he said it depends on:
Firstly, is integration as a single-regime country a 'Great Unity' (大一統)? There are two kinds of 'Great Unity' in China: one being the single regime adopted by Qinshihuang (秦始皇) ─ Prefecture-county system; another advocated by Confucius, saying countries are under 虛君, but with common ethical foundation (of Chinese culture). Confederation theory refers to the latter one, few federal states tie to be a confederation. It depends on the choice of politicians and people in different regions. Time will tell and allow people to choose whether integration of HK and Taiwan, independence or confederation is favourable. Moreover, is the nationalism on the mainland China sufficient to support mainlanders to enrol in the army? I don't think so. You can see from their attitude to Diaoyu Islands (Translator's note: Also known as Senkaku Islands). They are not the one who set sail to there, but Hongkongers and Taiwanese. Mainlanders broke Japanese cars in Japanese stores, but did not attack the embassy. There are many boats and ships in Fujian, but none of them set sail and occupy the islands. So we can discuss different opinions ─ how are they conceived, including the CCP.
Local interests must integrate with universal values
When Chin pointed out, plausibly, the originality of City-state Discourse and the power of the book in Realpolitik, Baig spoke bluntly that his goal was simply anti-CCP, and Chin actually didn't have much to say about racial harmony and multiculturalism.
She asked, that what can anti-CCP movement bring about: So what after the anti-CCP movement? Is such 'democratization' a real democracy? I think both universal values and human rights are important, as this is the firm bottom-line. If we compromise on these, then all social movement will disintegrate, as no one knows what the ultimate value is. For example, in cases like anti-CCP movement, anti-DNRs, anti-bootlegging of infant formula, if the government keeps on making concessions and giving petty favours to Hongkongers, Mr Chin, your supporters will not come out and confront as their demands are met. The government will not answer to demands like democracy and protection of human rights. This is the washout of the entire movement. Fighting for democracy and human rights are the right way in gearing ourselves to the international conventions, not the Chinese conventions. How 'Real' is your Realpolitik. Politicians can never do what you exepct. You think the anti-DNRs and anti-bootlegging of infant formula movement was successful, but these are only petty favours. The values behind remains the same, the boundary areas have to be opened.
Hosts: Following Baig, I just thought of some cases. On some parent forums, almost all people supported anti-DNRs proposed by CY's administration, but they will not involve in democratic movement. This is the fact of some Hongkongers, who lacks universal values as Baig mentioned.
She asked, that what can anti-CCP movement bring about: So what after the anti-CCP movement? Is such 'democratization' a real democracy? I think both universal values and human rights are important, as this is the firm bottom-line. If we compromise on these, then all social movement will disintegrate, as no one knows what the ultimate value is. For example, in cases like anti-CCP movement, anti-DNRs, anti-bootlegging of infant formula, if the government keeps on making concessions and giving petty favours to Hongkongers, Mr Chin, your supporters will not come out and confront as their demands are met. The government will not answer to demands like democracy and protection of human rights. This is the washout of the entire movement. Fighting for democracy and human rights are the right way in gearing ourselves to the international conventions, not the Chinese conventions. How 'Real' is your Realpolitik. Politicians can never do what you exepct. You think the anti-DNRs and anti-bootlegging of infant formula movement was successful, but these are only petty favours. The values behind remains the same, the boundary areas have to be opened.
Hosts: Following Baig, I just thought of some cases. On some parent forums, almost all people supported anti-DNRs proposed by CY's administration, but they will not involve in democratic movement. This is the fact of some Hongkongers, who lacks universal values as Baig mentioned.
Baig even think that what Chin mentioned ─ 'local interests', are the tangible interests of Hongkongers: Neither can these interests be turned into universal values, nor be enhanced. For example, no one would say the meaning of anti-bootlegging infant formula movement is 'democracy is the foundation of protecting our own rights'. If we have sufficient infant formula then we will be satisfied, no one would participate in public discourse, as their urgent needs are solved, and they will not attach so much attention to democracy. If they think so, they are not global citizens, but rather extremely 'local citizens'.
Facing doubts by Baig, Chin agreed that at the same time, Hong Kong shall struggle against the CCP as well as nurture citizens with vision, letting them know we need democracy in HK. Still, the vague impression of universal values remains in the mind of Chin.
Baig pointed out that if the democracy system in Hong Kong is very stable, no worry is needed for infringement of local interests: Some scholars said the issue of '2nd generation of immigrants' is actually a false statement. When the 1st generation took roots, the 2nd generation have already become local citizens, but not immigrants. People classified 'immigrants' as they are in a new place, different from others and not treated as local people. So when they can fully participate in local public discourse, they are already a part of society. Why do we think they will affect the local people's interests? They are local people once the government granted them citizenship.
(Editor's note: What she said is actually responding to what Chin had said at the beginning ─ EM is not the mainstream of the city-state.)
Post-script: Communitarianism and Realpolitik
During the discussion, Chin and Baig did not interact much. Chin did not clearly state the definition of local interests, but described it in three aspects:
(1) Local interests is on the opposite side of the interests of CCP;
(2) It refers to the 'mainstream' benefits of the Hong Kong society, and 'mainstream' is defined by the amount of people, as well as culture;
(3) It does not exactly equal to universal values.
According to Chin's comprehension of Aristotle, he created a discourse similar to communitarianism: he thinks that there are two kinds of moral principles ─ one being abstract and universal, that is, 'universal values'; another one being certain principles belonging to certain communities, that is, 'local interests'. He thinks that universal values are not into specific social context (脫離特定的社會脈絡), therefore it is impertinent to mention universal values when resources allocation is involved in real terms. He further pointed out that we need to establish a moral principle based on Hong Kong by common cultural, political and historical background (especially facing the challenge and suppression by the CCP), and use such principle in nurturing personal responsibilities and sense of belonging, as well as enhancing social movements and discussion of policy.
In political science, communitarianism is the most representative school putting community interests first. Communitarianism attach great importance to the qualification, participation and common interests of the community members, and treat these as important and just principle. Communitarians oppose the identity of world citizens. They think that a political community has little moral obligation to do with other political communities, and it is normal to have segmentation (區隔).
At the same time, they suggest that the moral identity of every member of the political community is equally important. A famous communitarian, Michael Walzer, once pointed out that community members can only involve in political decision-making once they obtained citizenship, and they can then feel their significance in the community as well as share interests among other members.
Chin's definition to 'community' emphasized more on bloodline and commonality. He thinks that the EM and the ethnic Chinese are of the same community, and welcomes them to be in the discussion. But Hong Kong shall pursue 'mainstream' interests when democracy is practiced, rather than the common interests of the entire community.
Here comes a question: if 'mainstream' only includes community members embracing ethnic Chinese culture, then we have to find out the reason why such culture and resources allocation are interrelated. If resources allocation is purely considered according to 'mainstream' benefits, then it would be a 'majority rule' without protecting the rights of minorities, and far from democracy and human rights.
In Realpolitik, Baig also raised several worthwhile questions to ponder: is democratic movement sustainable to promote 'community concepts' over universal values? Chin has obvious objectives when he emphasized local interests in the current stage, where Hong Kong is facing political and cultural suppression. But the core meaning of universality is that they are universally acknowledged and supported. Local interests shall not contravene universal values. Localist movement shall not be short-sighted and merely in pursuit of materialistic benefits selfishly. We think that a learned person shall welcome beneficial comments. We learnt a lot during this interview. We hereby hope that two interviewees and readers can bring more inspiration. Chin told us that he cherished such opportunities a lot after the interview. He did not express and defend his stances so comprehensively before. At last, we have to thank editorial team of Pentoy.
(Translator's note: As well as Kay, she helped me a lot. Really.)
Planned by Editorial Team of Pentoy
Photography by Yip Ka-ho
So what defines a Hongkonger? It appears that Chin and Baig agree to disagree and the whole discussion does not give a conclusion as to the definition of a true Hongkonger.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't really a unified answer, but this interview is merely an introduction in reflecting what defines a Hongkonger. Thank you for your comment anyway.
Delete