Bok Kit: Where the hell are you from, York Chow?

Where the hell are you from, York Chow?
Translated by Karen L. and Chen-t'ang, Edited by Karen L., Written by Bok Kit
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/03/26/67413 

The saying "ridiculousness can only be more but will never satisfy itself," cannot be more suitable as the description of today's Hong Kong.  
Shortly after the sneering wave of "Can't forget you" (忘不了你) [Translator's note: a performance carried out on the alumni association annual dinner of Queen's College in 2013], York Chow Yat-ngok, the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) again has won the crown of laughing stock. He, as the representative of EOC, announced that EOC will start examining the accessibility of the 4 Ordinances, and may mark amendments of the Race Discrimination Ordinance (RDO) in the third quarter of this year including even clarifications of terms like "the origin of the person" and the "identity for entry" so as to "avoid mainland Chinese from suffering discriminations in Hong Kong". By setting up "the minimum standard", they aim to put an end to all possible nonsense actions which might be found on Hong Kong people, to educate the community and to enhance the sense of citizenship.
Let's put it aside the practical "whats" and "hows" of "nonsense actions" and "the minimum standard" coming out of York Chow's mouth as Its creation and fantasy are enough to blow you off. Come on! How come mentioning one's mainland provenance and status would make a preposition of crime? 

Discrimination can be very subjective indeed. How somebody say or look at people can arouse lots of speculation and imagination. If I ask a mainlander where are they from, does it constitute discrimination? What about asking an applicant's background information during job interview? Even when triad gang members bluff others, they will say "Where the hell are you from?" [Translator's note: 邊撚度架你 can also means which triad branch do you belong to?], and this can also be discrimination against mainlanders. Some lawyers/barristers said it would be very unfair if Hongkongers having no freedom to tell them off as "locusts" in the condition that they grab milk formula, push up the property price and take over HKers' resources. With such "foresight", Hongkongers may get into literary inquisition (文字獄), and mainlanders will be on the altar: one cannot be rude to them nor scold them, as if they are sacred and inviolable like gangs or leftist-morons.

While I was still upset this morning, I received a hiring ad picture from my friend through Whatsapp. It explicitly says they "hire new arrivals" and "priority will be given to Mandarin speakers"! I was more than angry! Why emphasise on hiring new arrivals? Can't Hongkongers take this job? Are Hongkongers unable to speak Mandarin, and now we have to hire mainlanders? Isn't this genuine discrimination against Hongkongers? York Chow! Hongkongers are being discriminated on their own land now! Won't you be angry or ashamed as the chairperson of EOC?

All aspects in Hong Kong are encircled by invasion from China. You, as a former politically appointed officials, and a chairperson of an advisory body, do not defend the rights and dignity of Hongkongers, but rather protect those people from the external, and even want to set a Draconian law to deprive of the channel for Hongkongers to express their anger? What intention do you jerk bear? ARE YOU NOT A HONGKONGER?

Try the hooligans' catchphrase: "York Chow? Where the hell are you from?"
Lord Patten (肥彭), last governor of Hong Kong, has put it in this better way, "My anxiety is this: not that this community's autonomy would be usurped by Peking, but that it could be given away bit by bit by some people in Hong Kong." Hong Kong nowadays has got a bunch of bastards having their roots in Hong Kong while never act like one of us, living here with full of ingratitude to our city's nurturing, surrendering to the enemy for wealth. Those behaviors suit ever the name of "Traitors of Hong Kong".

Of course, as widely expected, the leftist-morons, some shortcoming shields, will not let us "off the hook" and will burst out blaming shit like "The discriminations over mainlanders do exist" or "it is urgent to maintain a tolerate and equal social atmosphere".

My friend has said and here I quote, "Hongkongers has never placed discriminations on mainland Chinese. We just simply look down on anyone without inner quality. If you think some other people treat mainlanders in an unfair way, that just indicates YOU, with the agreement that those mainlanders do have some unbearable behaviours, NOT US!" 


Wing: When will there be "Discrimination against Hongkongers Ordinance"?

When will there be "Discrimination against Hongkongers Ordinance"?
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-27-2014/12269 

My friend sent this ad to me yesterday, which reads "NOW HIRES LOTS OF NEW ARRIVALS"
[Translator's note: Chinese characters for new arrival is the same for new immigrants, which usually refer to mainland Chinese immigrants]. Although the advertisement did not define what makes a "new arrival", like how many years they stay in Hong Kong, yet we, who are born and raised here in HK, cannot be called as "new arrivals" for sure, right? Is this discriminating against Hongkongers?

As Hong Kong has not legislated for nation (國族), we can refer to Section 4(a) of Race Discrimination Ordinance (RDO, Cap. 602): "...on the ground of the race of that other person, the discriminator treats that other person less favourably than the discriminator treats or would treat other persons."

The employer in this advertisement excludes the opportunity for a person in obtaining a job ("a less favourable treatment") because he or she stays in Hong Kong for a longer period. As how many years did the person stay in HK has nothing to do with ability in their jobs, so this is definitely a discrimination according to the legislative motion of the Ordinance.

Oh, the local born-and-raised Hongkongers have degraded as second-class citizens, which are discriminated against. Now, the hiring ads dare to exclude our opportunities from applying a job. Hong Kong is the place where we are born and raised, but since the handover, new arrivals have more job opportunities than we do, isn't this ridiculous?

Coincidentally, York Chow, the Chairperson of Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) said few days ago: "The EOC plans to amend the RDO, including "the origin of the person" and the "identity for entry", because they "received some enquiries about mainlanders being discriminated in Hong Kong". Hey, York Chow! What about us, genuine Hongkongers? According to the hiring ad above, local Hongkongers are deprived of job opportunities outrageously! We have evidence here! We need more legal protection than new arrivals!

York Chow, when will you mention the legislation of "Discrimination against Hongkongers Ordinance", so as to protect Hongkongers from unfair treatment?

See Also

Race Discrimination Ordinance


Streetwise: Why we can't have another option? 為什麼不能有第三個方案?

Why we can't have another option? 為什麼不能有第三個方案?
Translated by Carmen Li, Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by Streetwise Policy Unit
Original link: Press here 

(Photo by Steve Kocino via Flickr)
The Hong Kong Government has put forward two options in the consultation paper of Fuel Mix for Electricity Generation.
Option one is to purchase from the China Southern Power Grid (CSG), which will take up 30% of Hong Kong’s electricity consumption. Altogether with current 20% of electricity consumption from Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant, half of the electricity will be imported from China altogether. 40% of generation will be using natural gas and 10% using coal.
Option two is to increase the ratio of natural gas for local generation from 20% to 60%, with the remaining 20% to be met by local coal-fired generation and renewable energy, while keeping 20% of nuclear import from Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant.

In fact, we have to pay double for electricity charges in both options. These options are not really environmentally-friendly (the so-called wind power and hydraulic power generations are actually relied on CSG). They cannot help solving the monopoly of two power companies.

The government always urges to develop Environmental Protection as one of the "six pillar industries", and pushes Hong Kong to "lead the way on sustainable energy". However, the target of renewable energy in 2020 is barely 3 to 4% of the total electricity consumption. Now the renewable energy in Germany has already taken 17% of total electricity consumption in 2011. It is predicted that in 2020, the figure will rise up to 35%, which is 10 times of Hong Kong’s target.  The Environmental Protection experts, Wong Kam-sing and Christine Loh Kung-wai, who have $300,000 as monthly salary, can only think of two options without creativity? Is it impossible to have the third option?

Solar power technology is advanced by leaps and bounds. In the past, solar power generation was not economically efficient, but now, the price of silicon has dropped a lot, which enables the payback period to be shortened to 10 years. Also, "zero emission" can be attained during power generation. In fact, there is only 1600 hours sunlight on average in Germany every year, whereas 1840 hours on average in Hong Kong. Therefore, it is more viable for Hong Kong to use solar power generation when it is applicable in Germany. Streetwise Policy Unit now proposes Option three:

- Separation of Plants and Grids. We require two power companies to separate power generation, power transmission and marketing as independent entities. Build up and make a new plan for the independent power grid company. Strengthen the current
   1) CLP (中電) and Power Assets Holding Limited (港燈)  and
   2) the connection between CLP and China Power Grid.
- Smart Grid must provide Net Metering.
- Enable mandatory legislation of space reservation for installation of solar panels in all buildings with rooftops receiving sunlight.
- The energy produced by solar panels can be provided for the public utilities of the buildings first. After the separation of the power grid, it can even be sold to power gird by cost price.
It is forseeable that this option will face lots of objection from many apartment owners. Usually, most of the apartment owners are not concerned much about environmental protection. They are not willing to pay a higher electricity charge, which could likely be saved in the future. In fact many solar panel companies in Europe and US do not require apartment owners to pay in advance. The way to pay is to install the solar panel first. The fees of installation and facilities would be deducted from the saved electricity charge in the next 10 years. It is a bit similar to the mortgage or payment by installments. The development of this market can be benefitted if the government can provide guarantees and subsidies.

Such ordinance can be implemented in different phases. The first phase is to require all new buildings to install solar panels. Then apply this to commercial buildings and factories in second phase. Residential buildings will be the final phase. The cheaper the price of silicon, the higher the effectiveness of absorbing solar power, and the fewer opposition should appear. If such option can be fully implemented, it is believed that solar power can be taken 30% of the total energy resource in Hong Kong. It should be able to meet the needs of future development in Hong Kong.


- 廠網分家,要求兩電分拆發電、輸配及銷售業務為獨立公司。成立獨立電網公司,重新規劃,並將其進化為聰明電網,加強現時
- 聰明電網必須提供淨用電量(Net Metering)。
- 立法硬性規定所有大廈有日照的天台至少要有一部份面積安裝太陽能電池板。
- 所產生的能量可先行為大廈的公共設施供電。電網分拆後甚至可以以成本價賣給電網。



Yip: Distinction between Men and Food

Distinction between Men and Food
Translated by Choi Siu-wa, Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by 葉政淳 (Yip Ching-shun)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-20-2014/11851 

"Some people even say their (Taiwanese) occupy movement is stimulated by Hong Kong's Occupy Central... Some think that Occupy Central is even more radical than occupying the council." says Chan Kin-man, one of the organisers of Occupy Central.

Taiwan students have been opposing Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA) by occupying the Legislative Yuan bravely and determinedly with thorough organisation, swift and decisive actions, and proper advance and retreat. The spokespersons answered the questions smoothly and calmly even though the reporters intended to heckle them. Also, the people of Taiwan are capable of assisting attacks that they all "give support when someone is on the attack". It is really not easy to have such kind of rapport because this requires the people to have a certain level of wisdom.

The people know that they will be in a deadly situation just like being killed slowly once CSSTA is approved, and therefore the students are able to hit back with massive support. On the contrary, Hongkongers are still in their dreams although they already had CEPA approved and are facing a political reform. Those "great" political leaders have been discussing all day long and doing things of little significance through the year.

On the other hand, Taiwanese have enough experience in actions. They understand that actions have to be consistent in order to equally distribute the risk, and the more people are participating, the safer is the movement. If they do not, it will be just another Hong Kong -- I stop when you act; you stop when I act. Everybody is afraid to be the first one standing out and get arrested, looking at each other in fear and getting the movement nowhere.

This massive occupy movement in Taiwan was triggered only by a small spark, and it then set off a series of chain reaction. Pulling the trigger, releasing the hammer, shooting the bullet, a gunpowder factory was detonated. It became a large-scale movement in a night that the Taiwan government was unable to cover it up. The fishers on the tiny island on the opposite coast were completely blown away watching such a series of efficient actions which they are both envious and jealous of.

There were students who initiated social movements in both Hong Kong and Taiwan, and the participants were also the people of the countries. But why did the movements turned out so differently? I always cannot help asking. I guess the answer is the difference in geography, form of government, history, education and folk customs, making two ethnic groups looking alike but having incomparable qualities. The word "meme" really isn't a joke.

It seems that even the Taiwanese girls' boobs are generally bigger than the Hong Kong girls’. We call it "the boobs of the other women are softer" and "Taiwanese girls' boobs are particularly round" [Editor's note: This is modified from two idioms, 隔籬飯香 (rice from your neighbour smells better than your own) and 外國的月亮特別圓 (the moon in foreign countries are rounder), both referring to something out there is better than one's own].

You do not need to ask a "Boobs Clan elder" to examine because you will find the answer out yourselves by taking a closer look at them. Hey, I am not asking you to look at their boobs. Instead, I am asking you to look at the people, and the scenes of protest of those students and people. They have been demonstrating their excellent quality of citizenship from storming the door to resisting the police, from the order to the materials management during the occupation, and from building barricades for defending themselves to preparing scripts for responding the media.

They are lucky to be in Taiwan because they will be labelled as rioters at the very beginning if they are in Hong Kong. It will begin with the vilification from the media, and will be followed by criticisms in the society. Then the police will stop at nothing like using violence for clearance following "the people's will", swiftly ending the so-called "riot". It will all become "normal" in the next morning. Everyone has to squeeze into MTR trains getting to work, and some may also have to wait for several more trains in order to get onto the trains. Everybody has to buy their expensive lunch just as usual. They will respond with "I don't care about politics" or "politics has nothing to do with me" if you tell them it is all because of CEPA, and you can never communicate with them. Some may even respond with the brainwashing sentence, “Hong Kong is already over if Beijing didn't look after you all!”, which they accepted without thinking, just like what the "locusts" from mainland China said. Therefore, Taiwanese deserves freedom. They live their lives with their souls, and you do not even deserve to be envious. Why Hongkongers are gradually becoming "sex slaves"? Blame yourself for not acting out.

While Taiwanese students were occupying the Legislative Yuan, the people outside said "don't worry, you are not alone." I was so touched that my eyes brimmed with tears when I listened that because there was a massive number of people backing behind the students. People were working hard spreading the news to break through the news blackout. They were rustling the materials up, cheering the students up, and resisting, surrounding, holding and bargaining with the police outside the Legislative Yuan. On the other hand, there were voluntary lawyers and doctors willing to provide support, aiming to get everything done in order to let the protesters concentrate in the occupation without being distracted by the trivial matters. I became quite emotional because this sentence does represent the near end of the protesters in Hong Kong. It implies that someone is going to take the glory on behalf of the protesters, or plot against the protesters by initiating a motion in the LegCo for denouncing the violence...

Meanwhile, those old chums who initiated "Occupy Central with Love and Peace" in Hong Kong spotted Taiwanese's glory and shamelessly took advantage of the Taiwanese protesters. Hongkongers were urging Taiwanese with their failure that Taiwanese should not "let Taiwan becomes another Hong Kong", but meanwhile those old chums were just taking advantage, saying that Taiwanese's non-violent protest was inspired by Occupy Central. How shameless it is! Among those old chums, there are people like the so-called star teacher of liberal studies, Yip Yat-chee, to escort the movement. Yip typed a bunch of nonsense words for absolving their foolish Occupy Central on Facebook. He used a straw man trick to prettify that Occupy Central, which did not contribute any to the society, with Taiwan's genuine occupation, saying "Occupy Central is the first occupy movement in Hong Kong". He cannot even differentiate between "occupation" and "surrender". How dare he call himself a star teacher of liberal studies! Haha, what a great joke!

Men possess the survival instincts of animals. Food have their value only if they look tasty. Hongkongers hate conflicts and politics; leftist morons tolerate the mainland travellers from Individual Visit Scheme, and Neocolonialism; traitors sprawl their legs letting the red capital to rape Hong Kong. The pan-democracy camp looks rejecting yet attracting to the Shanghai journey, asking for presenting themselves before higher officials. All of the individuals and groups listed above are food. Staying in a big pot of hopelessness, they enjoy soaking themselves in the soup of PRNN to make themselves tasting good and looking fine, and hastily sell themselves to those who are going to swallow them. What a terrible scene! No doubt it is a horror film.

If we do not want to be embroiled by these "food", we must spare no effort to fight against the traitors, including pan-democrats, leftist morons and social movement abusers, together with the communists, otherwise we will not have any chance to live.

P.S. PRNN = Peace, Rational, Non-violence and Non-profanity
        CEPA = Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement

(Photo: Passion Times)


Wing: Is "Love China, Love Hong Kong" written in the Basic Law?

Is "Love Country, Love Hong Kong" written in the Basic Law?
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-21-2014/11875/ 

Anti-CSSTA movement participants are occupying the Legislative Yuan with rage, but back in Hong Kong, it is just like a sleepy backwater. I read a piece of news today. Coming as no surprise, when asked about the candidates' qualifications of Chief Executive (CE) in the future, the former Director of HKMAO, LU Ping [Translator's note: Yes, the guy who called Chris Patten as 'a sinner of a thousand years'] said: "A Chinese citizen is still not a genuine patriot if he only loves the rich history and great culture of the motherland, rather than the Socialism-based PRC. A CE must be a patriot, and that, is a clear stipulation in the Basic Law."

Really? I can't help my suspicion. When CCP took over Hong Kong, I went to Cheung Sha Wan Government Office to get "An ABC Guide to the Basic Law". It seems like there's not a word mentioning the CE must have been a patriotSo I went on searching for the original text of the Basic Law, pressed Ctrl + F, and searched '愛國' (Patriotic), but it went - NO RESULTS.

Haha! So great that I didn't fall for that theory - "Patriotic-is-a-must-for-CE". How clever I am knowing to use the searching tool well! But when I was thinking of sharing this huge discovery on Facebook, all of a sudden, something ran through my mind - People mention a lot on the news like "original intent of legislation". Will there be any possibility that other similar descriptions are used instead of '愛國' (Patriotic) in the Basic Law? How embarrassed I will be if my mistake is pointed out! So I gave up on the searching tool and sincerely read the provisions (10As I would probably get if ever I was that serious back in school). And the closest one might be Article 43: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be accountable to the Central People's Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the provisions of this law."

But this doesn't seem sensible. "Be accountable to YY in accordance with the provisions of the law XX" doesn't mean "to love YY unconditionally". Parents in Hong Kong shall "be accountable to their children in accordance with the provisions of Guardianship of Minors Ordinance", but that doesn't mean there is an obligation to "love". It isn't rare to see parents who don't love their children, is it? Drivers in Hong Kong have to "be accountable to pedestrians in accordance with the provisions of Road Traffic Ordinance". Don't tell me the drivers are meant to love the pedestrians!

Therefore, there is no "Love China, Love Hong Kong" (愛國愛港, LCLHK) stipulation restricting the CE in the Basic Law. As a matter of fact, it's rather speaking from the perspective of politics than law.

So, where does "CE must be LCLHK" come from? I then googled that, and here are what I found. Besides LU Ping, we have:

"The CE of HK must "love China" and "love Hong Kong". Those who are against the central government cannot take this job." -- QIAO Xiaoyang,  Director of Legal Committee of NPC
ZHANG Dejiang, Chairman of NPCSC, mentioned "One stance, three conformities" for a CE, which includes the requirement of "Love China, Love Hong Kong".
Words by Qiao and Zhang provokes politicians in Hong Kong commenting and discussing the meaning of "Love China, Love Hong Kong" in circles, including Elsie Leung, Rita Fan, Emily Lau, Lee Cheuk-yan etc. I am confused. Why do we have to bother with this? Qiao and Zhang surely are people with certain significance, however, these are no more than their own opinions. At least by now, LCLHK is not written in the law. Isn't Hong Kong a society with the rule of law? It means we enforce the law according to ordinances. How people say and think cannot be the grounds for exercising law. Put it simply: You are on court because you committed parking contravention. The judge cannot simply sentence you heavier just because he thinks that "you look like his ex-girlfriend/ex-wife". What does this mean if Hongkongers started to self-censor themselves as some people said a few words, which have not even become the law? Does Hong Kong follow China's suit, where rule by man overrides rule of law?

(Photo provided by Wing Wing)


Yip: Taiwan youth slapped Occupy Central in the face

Taiwan youth slapped Occupy Central in the face
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by 葉政淳 (Yip Ching-shun)

Taiwan students protest against Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA), and took over the Legislative Yuan successfully. Some 200 people asked to put CSSTA on the backburner (which the motion, according to the Rule of Procedure, was automatically carried), and deliberate each and every terms and conditions one by one. They also demanded an apology from President Ma Ying-jeou. The fury could not be stopped. Some people outside chanted slogans and pulled the entrance gate, while some climbed into the 1st floor of the legislature through their own aerial ladders. It seems that they are demonstrating to Hong Kong the genuine meaning of 'occupation'. The scenes outside the Yuan was comparable to that of inside. It is said that the policemen tried to enter by force, but were impeded by students with strong will. Students removed heavy chairs to block the entrace from policemen's attack. Before they shut the door, they had sent all their materials and food as if they were trained for a long time.

Are there any deliberation before such organised movement? I believe so. Of course, there are rapports among different activists. At the same time, the three masterminds of Occupy Central (OC) announced a "Non-violent Confrontation Drills Camp" on Facebook, and the participants shall be restricted to those who signed the Letter of Intent of OC. Before this, Prof Joseph Cheng was interviewed by radio station D100. He said, "OC is just a nominal confrontation, and cannot change the fact that there is no democracy. So what should we do? In fact, we can only wait for changes from China." And they also trained Democrats to intimidate policemen through evil eyes. By seeing such ridiculous acts, we can spot the difference obviously. There are lots of doubts and taunts to such ludicrous act. We felt that our anger is somehow relieved when we see the way Taiwanese youth act slapped these OC gadflies in the face.

Nothing decent is done since the announcement of OC! Deliberation on how to deliberate, on when to deliberate, on how to raise funds, on the use after raising funds.... the story goes on and on. And to have electronic referendum as spendthrifts. You motherfuckers! The genuine occupation by the Taiwanese youth are so clear cut, and the interlocutors are all youngsters and students. You middle-aged gadflies are so brazen-faced as you are dogs in the manger! OC has become neither shit nor shinola, but what don't they admit they have taken the erroneous path?

The answer is the Democratic Party. They participate in OC, saying they want universal suffrage even at the expense of being jailed, but dare not to stand out for civil nomination, against institution nomination! They had backroom deals with the Communist Party back in the Liaison Office before they betray voters! They even put a victory hand gesture and grinned when they support Kevin Lau, the former Chief Editor of Ming Pao. YOU GOT THE ANSWER!

Without a crystal ball, you can tell the political reform for 2017 by the government will certainly be passed, and the day when "one-person-one-vote" election with Communist screening candidates will come by. This is Hongkongers' last chance, don't ever dream of these 'pseudo-democrats' will fight for genuine democracy. If you don't galantly occupy like Taiwanese students when the motion will be voted, you won't be able to occupy anything. Take it, those who are still asleep!


Yoyo Ko: Nobody can be able to smear Chinese

Nobody can be able to smear Chinese
Translated by Karen L., Written by Yoyo Ko (高慧然)
Original: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/supplement/columnist/3566275/art/20140312/18652953

(Photo: T.H. Li via Flickr; not the same one as Yoyo Ko mentioned)

I saw a photo online, captured in a plane cabin: On the two window seats, flattened pillow with folded blankets under it, lie tidily as it is waiting for passengers. At first glance, I thought it was taken by passenger who just got on the plane and thought that the pillow and blanket was not been used. Yet I soon realized, the unused ones are supposed to be in plastic bags.

This photo was uploaded by a flight attendant, who mentioned serving a Japanese study abroad group of 40 to Australia, a long-haul flight. Kids in the group are around 10 to 12, quiet and polite. By the arrival to the destination, all kids had thanked the flight attendants bowing from the waist before leaving the cabin and every one of them cleared the blankets and pillows away.

This is how Japanese looks. No matter where this type of people go, they are welcomed. Assuming that the individual image of numerous nationals define a country's image, then Japanese tells the image of Japan; and Chinese tells the image of China. Whether Chinese are welcomed or not (In Chinese words, it would be "being discriminated", "being smeared", "not being embraced", etc.), it is decided by their behaviours, which they shall take responsibility.

Chinese playwright, Sha Yexin, wrote in "Chinese nation has arrived at its most perilous time", one of his book series "Political Culture", that nobody can be able to smear the Chinese Communist Party but itself. This is no false at all. And, nobody can be able to smear Chinese, the one who can is Chinese themselves.


Wing: Segregation of HK and China settles the feud

Segregation of HK and China settles the feud
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)

[Translator's note: Ah Kong refers to Hong Kong, Cathay refers to mainland China in this article]

Ah Kong and Cathay had lived in the same orphanage since they were small. They had been through thick and thin in the same dilapidated premise, and they had a so-so friendship. One day, a foreign lady from afar saw Ah Kong was smart though he was weak in body. She adopted him and brought him home. Not long after that, the orphanage closed down because of poor management.

The lady had taken good care of Ah Kong, from clothes to education[1]. She taught him the way to do things properly. The lady was not poor, but she required Ah Kong to give most of his income from his part-time job while studying. Some neighbours said the foreign lady did not love Ah Kong, and merely treated him as a cash cow. But Ah Kong knew that she treated him with benevolence: not only did she allow him to study and to be sensible, she also let him acquired living skills. Most importantly, she had really taken a good care of his life. He did not need to worry about every aspect of his life. If she did not save him, he might have already died in the decrepit orphanage.

When Ah Kong grew older, he suddenly thought of Cathay, the guy next to his bed in the orphanage. He used all means to ask for Cathay's whereabouts, and eventually they had a reunion. They talked about what happened after the orphanage closed down. It was a sad story for Cathay, who roamed on the streets with rough times. Ah Kong could not help but bring some food and stuff to visit him. Cathay was so impoverished that he wanted to take Ah Kong's pants. But Ah Kong understood him, and did not blame him. He even brought more pants to him [2].

All good things must come to an end. When Ah Kong grew up to be an adult, the foreign lady had to return to her home country, but she was unable to bring Ah Kong back. She reminded Ah Kong: "You are smart, diligent and flexible. You might look tough but you are nice. Do you remember the time when someone was hit by a car? You helped lifting the car immediately [3]! I love you a lot, but I can't put you aside. But bear this in mind, Ah Kong, pay attention to Cathay, he isn't that good as you think. He's now too weak and feeble, so he can't threaten you now. If he tries to be ferocious in the future, you will not be well-prepared[4] to deal with him. Always be careful, got that?" Ah Kong nodded without understanding a lot.

After bidding the lady farewell, Ah Kong has formed a family, and started a grocery store by his own efforts. Ah Kong's products might not be the cheapest one, but the reliable quality and long-lasting integrity gain him goodwill, and his store has gradually had a brisk business, even foreign tourists come to patronise. On the contrary, the place where Cathay lives suffered from natural disasters like flood[5] and earthquake[6]. Ah Kong was zealous in assisting Cathay when he was in trouble. In normal times, Ah Kong had been providing some capital for Cathay to do some small business.

On the other hand, by unscrupulous means, Cathay eventually accumulates his wealth, and becomes a parvenu. Once he becomes rich, he has to avenge, so he brought his underlings to make scenes everywhere. Finally, they arrived at Ah Kong's store. They urinated, defecated, shouted loudly, and bought all the groceries in the store. Tourists dared not to patronise[7]. Ah Kong coaxed Cathay and his underlings out of their behaviours, especially not to buy out infant formula. Due to limited supply, infant formula will be in shortage if Cathay take up infant formula crazily, then not even Ah Kong's neighbours and he himself, can  feed their own children. But Cathay knows that he is gullible, and said, "Running dog of that foreign bitch! [8] How dare you be so arrogant before you get prosperous[9]?  What do you eat upon if we don't spend money here[8]?"

If Cathay genuinely thinks Ah Kong is a running dog, then what Cathay and his underlings do is grabbing dog's food from dogs! Paying lip service to his own words, actually, it is jealousy Cathay has over to Ah Kong. Yet it would be easy for us to understand this mentality, even Ah Kong is not as rich as Cathay, Ah Kong has cultivated by civilisation, attaching importance to rules and regulations, as well as credibility and goodwill. Such are all absent in Cathay. For parvenus, "Poorness" is their pronoun, as they have nothing but money.

After the mess, Ah Kong calmed down and started calculating the business brought by Cathay. It is found that it only counts for 2% [10] of the entire business, but all other customers are scared by them, dragging great loss to the store. At the same time, the shortage of infant formula causes this stuck problem of which Ah Kong has to seek them elsewhere for his neighbours. Having no choice, Ah Kong has to either set new initiatives in putting a cap on the entry of Cathay's gang[11], or to impose entrance fee[12]/exit fee[13] on them, and by such means, the performance of his grocery store can be able to improve.

Shall we support Ah Kong's idea, or suggest him to do nothing, "embracing" his "bro" and avoiding any hard feelings? You, smart readers shall know the answer, don't you?

External Links (Chinese, for English readers' sake, titles are translated):
[1] Sir MacLehose announced 9-year free education will be imposed in 1978

[2] Hong Kong Kilnt - Hongkongers queueing in Tsim Sha Tsui Railway Station waiting for trains, netizens say they wore several clothes and trousers to help relatives in mainland

[3] A man said "Help if you're a man", 18 strong men lifted a minibus and saved a woman beneath

[4] Mike HANSON, the former Information Secretary of the Governor: "If the society is not ready for facing the truth, it would be a serious problem, and Hong Kong is not ready for Communist Party" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cfZ_xR8ZAg

[5] 1991, East China was flooded (over 470 million was raised within 10 days)

[6] List of Wenchuan Earthquake donation (HKSAR government allocated 350 million HKD [=310 million RMB] assistance fund for this); 9 billion was appropriated in 2008 and 2009 in three stages; 9.35 billion HKD in total) http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B1%B6%E5%B7%9D%E5%A4%A7%E5%9C%B0%E9%9C%87%E6%8D%90%E6%AC%BE%E5%88%97%E8%A1%A8

 [7] 4% more mainland tourist in Lunar New Year, with less foreign visitors

[8] Shi Junlong scolded at 'anti-locusts protesters': "You should go to UK to be UK's running dogs!"; Mainland tourists: "What do they eat upon if we don't spend here?"

 [9] CY Leung: Hongkongers are 'arrogant before they become prosperous'http://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E6%A2%81%E6%8C%AF%E8%8B%B1%E6%8A%A8%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%AA%E5%AF%8C%E5%85%88%E9%A9%95-224536724.html

 [10] HK Govt: IVS contributed 1.3% to GDP, but public order is affected 

 [11] Some organisations urged the govt to cancel "one visa, multiple visits" by Shenzhen residents

[12] A political party advocates imposing land entry levy of $100 HKD

[13] Exit levy on bootleggers can restore order for the tourism industry

(Photo source: stranofly via Flickr)

Mingpao: Is HK still the HK we knew? 王維基的遭遇 使許多人對香港陌生起來

Is HK still the HK we knew? 王維基的遭遇 使許多人對香港陌生起來
Translated and Written by Ming Pao

【明報專訊】HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK (HKTV) chairman Ricky Wong, a man who never gives up easily, said he had "come to a dead end" after his company had been informed by the Communications Authority that, if it wanted to provide TV programmes for an audience of more than 5,000 households with known addresses, it must have a free-to-air or pay-TV licence, or it might violate the Broadcasting Ordinance.


Wong's plans to start his TV business have suffered one setback after another. Last year, the government came to a decision regarding the award of new free-to-air TV licences. While HKTV had allocated more resources to its projects and was better prepared than the other applicants, the government rejected its application and refused to explain the decision. HKTV then acquired from a subsidiary of China Mobile its mobile-TV licence, which was generally regarded as a new breath of life for the company. However, shortly afterwards, China Mobile announced that it was conducting an internal inquiry into the deal between its subsidiary and HKTV, giving rise to doubts as to the validity of HKTV's acquisition of the mobile-TV licence. And then Television Broadcasts (TVB) declared that, with effect from July 6, it would terminate an agreement to lease to HKTV six hilltop transmission stations. As a result, HKTV's plan to launch mobile-TV services on July 1 became even more uncertain.


And now HKTV is faced with a regulation problem. According to the Communications Authority, it has given a "friendly reminder" to HKTV saying that if the company's transmission system enables it to provide instantaneously mobile-TV services for an audience of more than 5,000 households with known addresses, it must first of all possess a free-to-air or pay-TV licence. It is true that the Broadcasting Ordinance says a company must have a TV licence if it wants to provide TV services for "an audience of more than 5,000 specified premises". However, when years ago the mobile-TV licence issue was being discussed in the Legislative Council, the papers submitted by the government stated clearly that it did not propose to amend the Broadcasting Ordinance and bring mobile-TV services under its regulation.


Now the Communications Authority is applying the ordinance to HKTV's mobile-TV services. This is a de facto policy change. Moreover, as Wong has pointed out, when mobile-TV services were provided by China Mobile's subsidiary, whose transmissions could reach 90 percent of the population, the government did not attempt to impose any regulations; however, with Wong's acquisition of the mobile-TV licence, the government is taking steps to bind his hands with the Broadcasting Ordinance. Wong believes the government is applying the law differently to different people.


Hong Kong has traditionally upheld the principle of equality before the law. What is happening to Wong and HKTV is foreign to our experience. Today's Hong Kong is no longer the Hong Kong that so many of us knew so well. To put it simply, we see in the HKTV case the rule of man. The rule of law appears to have slipped far, far away.


The many hurdles put in Wong's way show that the powers that be are making every effort to prevent the expansion of the TV industry. And the measures they have taken are so unreasonable that one cannot but wonder: What is happening to Hong Kong? This is a question which we believe many people are asking.


(Photo added by Chen-t'ang, source from Delight Media Hong Kong)


Zhang: Where does the 'almsgiver mentality' come from?

Where does the 'almsgiver mentality' come from?
Translated by Wong Poon-cho 王本初, Chen-t'ang 鎮棠 and Karen L., Written by Zhang Chunxu (張春續)

Recently, an anti-locust protest broke out in Hong Kong due to HK-China conflicts. Controversially, some mainlanders described themselves as almsgivers while these thoughts are wide-spread within the country and Hong Kong is not their only focus.

With a strong economy, mainlanders treat themselves as almsgivers of many nations or regions

It isn't something new when some mainland Chinese treat themselves as 'almsgiver'. While facing the insult brought by the anti-locust march in this territory, many Chinese visitors expressed that if it had not been their consumption, Hong Kong would never have been this prosperous. The views above were biased but yet familiar. Back in 2008, a mainland tourist, detained in Hong Kong International Airport, while murmuring against the poor attitude of the working crew, exclaimed,' If Hong Kong were not taken care of by the Central Government, it would have come to an end!'. The speech above shocked the whole city while the locals began to show dissatisfaction on them. Same things happened in Macau and Taiwan when mainland tourists flooded the two places.
The above attitude is repulsive to Hongkongers. Such feelings are not only shown in the few single protests but also several public opinion programmes. According to the one conducted by the University of Hong Kong, in which 1016 locals were randomly picked and surveyed, 37% of the interviewees identified themselves as 'Hongkongers' while only 17% regarded themselves as 'Chinese', which is a record low. Thus 45% claimed to be a 'Chinese Hongkonger' or a 'Hong Kong Chinese'.

This 'almsgiver mentality' also exists when Chinese trades with US or EU, especially when involving US bonds

As China develops its economy, there are more and more frequent trade of goods and services between China and other countries. The extention of 'almsgiver mentality' crossed the Pacific Ocean and not only stayed in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. This is simply due to the fact that many Chinese believe their home-country is the saviour of the world economy after the crisis and sincerely think that 'The prosperity of the West all lies in China. China is the only solution of the economic tsunami.' With such 'almsgiver mentality', we have another typical example: US bonds. According to figures from the Department of the Treasury, China held US$131.67 billion US treasury bonds last November, which is a historical peak. With so many US bonds in China, some Chinese yelled "US people, repay us!" Some people even believe that if China did not buy US bonds, US government would be bankrupt long ago. In the eye of these people, such investment becomes a 'political alm'.

Moreover, in certain Chinese cities, the locals will hold similar 'almsgiver mentality' against those from other provinces

Moreover, mainland Chinese do not only regard themselves as 'almsgivers' of the foreigners or HK, Macau and Taiwan people. This concept is even rooted within its own territory while citizens among different provinces or even with the same region held exactly the same concept.

This can be easily found in the leading cities Beijing or Shanghai where locals are aiming to exclude the outsiders. While some are worrying that people from other provinces (in-foreigners) would take all of their resources and earned their money, some feel privileged to be able to provide in-foreigners some opportunites while the locals would then become almsgivers.

Mistook mutual beneficial transactions as 'alms', causing 'almsgiver mentality'

Facing a strong growth in China, it is reasonable for Chinese to feel that they are on the stronger side

With fast economic growth, Chinese people has a 'thicker wallet' and more confidence. Especially in the game of business, buyers with capital are usually more proactive. This kind of active right on manipulation will easily result in a stronger mentality of buyers. It is still reasonable.

Mistook mutual beneficial transactions as 'alms' caused 'almsgiver mentality'

But to many mainlanders, they take 'having such kind of advantage' as a symbol of 'almsgiver', turning their capital and interest as 'alms'. Some people cannot sort out the difference between business and alms, therefore something that should be 'mutually beneficial' becomes 'the buyer rules it all'.

And if we think transactions are mutually beneficial, it will be ludicrous when we see such 'almsgiver mentality' or 'the prosperity of HK and Taiwan lie in alms from mainland China'. Although mainland China provided many preferential policies to Hong Kong, but they are genuine business: one party buys what they want, the other earn a fortune. It is not appropriate to say business partners shall be 'grateful' to mainland China.

Take Hong Kong as an example. In fact, Hong Kong did not spend a penny less in obtaining basic necessities, sometimes even more expensive. Take water supplies as an example, around 60-70% is from Dongjiang, with 1.1 billion tonnes of annual maximum capacity. But now it is just providing some 0.7 billion tonnes. In contracts before 2011, mainland provides 0.8 billion tonnes of water to Hong Kong, with less than 0.717 billion tonnes in 2010 (and the bill is 3.2 billion HKD/413 million USD). Hong Kong still have to pay for the saved parts, and some HK media even called this as 'pouring 200 million HKD to the sea'. According to HKEJ, Guangdong province can earn 50% profit from water supplies business. And now, electricity. Since 1979, the grid of HK China Light and Power (HKCLP) and Guangdong Electricity Grid (GEG) has been connected, and HKCLP sells electricty to GEG. Now there are two electricty companies in HK: HKCLP and HK Electric, and the power plant in outlying islands can fulfill the needs in the territory. Some of the industrial power demands are fulfilled by Daya Wan Nuclear Station in Shenzhen.

Misunderstanding of issues, like US bonds, also contribute to the formation of 'almsgiver mentality'

To treat business as 'alms-giving' is actually a misunderstanding, and treating purchase of US bonds as 'alms' comes from misunderstanding to complicated finance situation. In fact, it is also a win-win business for China too: there was no default record of US bonds. No matter how hard it can be, even in WWII, US will repay in time with interests. Because of good reputation, US bonds have been treated as the most reliable assets by many countries. The daily turnover of US bonds is some 500 billion USD, and the annual turnover rate of marketable securities is 33 times. US bonds are still the best and most liquid product in the asset market.

To conclude, it would be wise if China choose to buy US bonds, one of the safest choice, as China has a forex reserve of over 3800 billion USD. But it would be ridiculous to treat a voluntary investment behaviour as 'almsgiving'.

Certain social factors and propaganda makes some people feel that the 'almsgiver mentality' is a matter of course

Besides misunderstanding in transaction and financial knowledge, the 'almsgiving mentality' in mainlanders business sector are also affected by many socio-cultural factors with Chinese characteristics and propaganda:

A "Strong Country Mentality" as a "Great Country eventually Rises", some mainlanders have a top-down mentality

Comparing to the economy of China, where it develops in full speed, within twenty tears, the status of Hong Kong starts to fall from a financial hub to a common Chinese city. It's the same in Hong Kong, as well as other places. With such rapid change, the mentality of some mainland Chinese also changes. As a "Great Country eventually Rises", some mainlanders will show their "Strong Country Mentality" outside. As China becomes the second largest economy in the world, some people may hold a top-down mentality, to view things with closed mindsets and hostility, thus bolstering the sense of 'almsgiver'.

Financial Times once commented: 'Even facing poorer and smaller countries in Africa, China shall seriously deal with the business conflicts with these countries. China shall not appear as an 'almsgiver' while emphasising 'friendship' and 'allies'. (Translator's note: Cannot trace on FT's site)

With high degree of resource control by the government, the national policy will impact greatly on economic aspect, bringing misunderstanding

Mainland China, in compare with other countries and districts, stands out by its central-control government. Capital flow depends solely on the government's policy. The place where is put "extra-focus" can enjoy rapid economic growth. It create an illusion that the more economic growth of a place has been received, the better the policy and support have been established.

This misunderstanding is one of the factors strengthening the "almsgiver mentality" and forming the thought, which prosperity "benefits from the great policy" for part of the mainlanders.

Voice of promotion, in years of practice, has aggravated the spread of 'almsgiver mentality'

In a media person Hu Zi-mo's view, that long-term implantation attributes to natural thought of "almsgiver mentality". Some of them even try to prove its truthfulness, and take the Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia (CEPA) of Hong Kong as an example, which was dubbed "the big gift" by medias of Beijing but turned out to be following principles and standards set by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Hong Kong has long been cooperating with other countries and districts under such agreements. CEPA is just an agreement which made normal the unhealthy economic relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong. If this is what they called "the big gift", then Hong Kong must have been given big gifts from America, Europe and Japan.

Not a few of mainland Chinese possess the thought that prosperity of Hong Kong is the effort of great policy

"3-Supplier Express" of mainland China had provided Hong Kong fresh foods in the early days, and by the Handover in 1997, its promotion reached the peak —  Wu Yi, the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade at that time, personally escorted the Express to show the world the effort of "3-Supplier Express"; Jin Xu, the director of "Office of Leading Group of 3-Supplier Express to Hong Kong and Macao was invited to the Spring Festival Gala and introduced there the "35 years of the solid 3-Supplier Express" in one of the events "3-Supplier Express heading to Hong Kong". Since then, mainland China was made believe to be the support of Hong Kong. The Group of China Resources, put a spin on it, calling the "3-Supplier Express" as a "pool" collecting imports money.
Until now, those voices of promotion still exist. Description like 'China benefits with US and UK with great deals. Big gifts of millions of US dollars to them' is more than normal in news of mainland China.

Finally, do not ignore the Chinese culture of confusion between business and gratitude

Apart from the policy promotion mentioned above, "business" in Chinese culture, is never a sheer business, which has acted an important role causing such "almsgiver mentality".
When we traced back to the time before the Opium War, we will find it more obvious treating business as an act of charity. At that period, China with its self-sufficiency, needed no international trade, and all kinds of tribute was delivered by the nobles. It was then for China to show its charity to foreign businessmen, with the placement of a port in Guangzhou.
Even today's business world in China still cannot makes clear the difference between business and gratitude. Some Chinese businessmen even say things like "You are the philanthropist supporting my life" to show thanks to their buyers. Part of them measures the others with its own standard, which is reasonable to explain why it is nothing strange for them to add "almsgiver mentality" in fair deals.


Buyers are relatively active in the business relationship. A "sense of superiority" is expected to be driven by this initiative. Somehow, for part of the mainlanders, this "sense of superiority" in mind then upgraded itself to be "almsgiver mentality". They even regard themselves "almsgivers" and raise resentment of their arrogance. The cultivation of "almsgiver mentality" has been planting by the the history, the politics and the promotion in mainland China.


Chip Tsao: A matter of logic

A matter of logic
Translated by Karen L., Written by 陶傑 (Chip Tsao)
Original: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/supplement/columnist/%E9%99%B6%E5%82%91/art/20140302/18642069

Kevin Lau Chun-to, former chief editor of Ming Pao, has suffered in a savage knife attack. The city burst with anger, no exception to the LegCo, "condemning the violence" through protests, rallies and forums, yet not a few of them avoid to mention that "the press freedom is under threat."

I was chatting with a MBA Central elite another day, while him sided with the stream condemning violence. But then he added, "I agree with CY Leung's daughter. This is merely a matter of violence, with no evidence indicating that it has anything to do with press freedom."

"As if what you say," I replied, "the attack on Mr. Lau has no difference with those attacks on any other tattooed man, valet boy or unemployed in Yau Tsim Mong district by nature. With years of attacks of this kind, how come there have never been protests and rallies supporting these injured or dead?"

The returned MBA didn't reply, and I proceeded, "The reason why Mr. Lau incident raised 'the city's outrage', is because, neither he is a nightclub valet, nor an ordinary Chinese or an ordinary Hong Kong citizen, but his identity of being a journalist. If an ordinary citizen got ambushed, it won’t develop to be 'the city's outrage', however now, a journalist is chopped. If this isn't threat of press freedom to you, what’s the sense of you joining the stream of 'outrage'?"

He insisted on his thought, "Anyways, such proofs didn't come up. The attack may be due to some personal reasons. Linking everything with press freedom doesn't work always."

"Choi Tsz-ming, an executive producer, was shot dead in 1992, and some artists were smacked and beat up due to some gangland-personal reasons. In your logic, this Mr. Lau would be the same with them. Then who visited Lau Chun-to in Eastern hospital, like the Chief Executive, top officials, President of LegCo and pro-Beijing Legco members, even they were not going to admit the connection between the attack and press freedom, they should have officially clarified their roles there are just being a considerate friend. Otherwise everybody would presume, including the central government of Beijing, that their moves assertively need no proof to point out the threat of press freedom."

Back in 1992, by Mr. Choi's death, out of evidence, no one ever mention a word of "political threat of free creation in movies", and it was then regarded as a gangland grudge. Now Lau’s incident has been supported by many, whatever political stands they belong to, while the "same case" in 1992, was not "rewarded" as Lau.

That is to say, in between different political stands, it is divided into two groups: "threat-of-press-freedom" group and "no-evidence-to-prove" group. One of them shouldn't join the stream of condemnation. This, is a matter of logic.

(Image source: Delight Media Hong Kong)