Atsuna: Knowing Our Priority Is Necessary

Knowing Our Priority Is Necessary

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, edited by Kristee Q, written by Atsuna

Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/05-17-2015/23019 

(Source: Pentoy)

China has been described after 1949 as: "Relaxed control results in chaos, chaotic society causes stringent control, stringent control results in bitterness [or death], and once bitterness is realised, control is released." (一放就亂，一亂就收，一收就死，一死就放。) On the 1st July 2003, 500,000 protesters took to the streets against the legislation of Article 23, and Tung Chee-hwa, the first Chief Executive stepped down. What Hongkongers deemed as victory was seen as chaos - the result of "relaxed control", was "stringent control" being imposed which paved the way for "economic colonisation" by the Individual Visit Scheme (2003); playing China's National Anthem before Chinese News Reports (2004) and removing the Central Star Ferry Pier and Queen's Pier (2006) were ways to remove the collective memory of Hongkongers, so as to further China's cultural aggression. After Donald Tsang, CY Leung was appointed -- a metamorphosis from "AO ruling HK" to "Party member ruling HK". Donald is but a classic toady who very cautiously nurtured his self-interest; CY is a more daring person who confront Hongkongers by squeezing Hongkongers' necks. He waits to see whether Hongkongers are strong enough to withstand such "bitterness".

People can be reckless when they are forced into corners and the Umbrella Revolution is almost the last attempt of Hongkongers to display their beliefs. Yet "Kongformists" will support slogans like "being rational and tolerant" in these moments. Charging is too radical, breaking glass is too radical, so they mentally masturbate themselves by the number of protesters and the peace and order during and after the protest (like not burning vehicles and picking up rubbish). I am not saying that being tolerant, rational or picking rubbish is bad, but Hongkongers perhaps do not know the priority of action against tyranny.

Tong Tekong, a renowned Chinese scholar in the US, says there are different "main and sub-themes" in different eras of China's modernisation. The main theme is the "most urgent issue" of the era, and the sub-theme is the "less pressing issue". Sometimes the methods of accomplishing the main and sub-theme might contradict each other. So, those who wholeheartedly want to accomplish the main theme might add burden to the solution of sub-theme; but those who forget the main theme and focus on the sub-theme will certainly be spurned.

This is what Mrs Chan thought. When Hong Kong is at the brink of its death, these "Kongformists" are still obsessed with rationality and tolerance - sub-themes that contradict with the main theme.

Hongkongers have lost the best moment for negotiation with China after decades. China does not allow the autonomy of Hong Kong, yet they put "High degree of autonomy" in the Sino-British Joint Declaration (High degree of autonomy DOES NOT EQUAL  AUTONOMY). Although holding the upper hand, China did not rise up, and knowing that Hong Kong would fall into its hands sooner or later, so it pretended to be kind and gentle. Even Mao Zedong promised "As long as the people have oversight of the government, then government will not slacken in its efforts. (July 1945)" Turning their back on the people and failing their promises are good reasons why the Communist Party will succeed. In only 18 years, Hong Kong has "deserved" a lot. It is possible that in a few years to come, given the present dissent the Red Army may come out and suppress protests in Central.

When the last emperor of Ming dynasty, Chongzhen, died, the funeral lament cried, "Keeping cowardly ministers in court, and timid generals in fields of battle, and now nothing has left in our dynasty but our cries and laments." I am immediately reminded of the inabilities of the cowardly HKSARG officials and the pan-dems, and the "caring mothers"  (police) mishandling my tax money. I wonder when we "have nothing left", will my friends or relatives cry to Victoria Harbour, which has long been polluted by Dongjiang water? After the cries and laments,  are Hongkongers ready for any sacrifices?

After all, Mao has said, 

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."

Maron: HKers Are Not Morally Obliged to Save Depraved Chinamen

Hongkongers Are Not Morally Obliged to Save Depraved Chinamen

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Maron (瑪倫)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-15-2015/21757/ 

Gary Fan, Claudia Mo, Ray Chan, "Fast Beat", "Long Hair", James Hon, Raphael Wong Ho-ming.....these names were widely acclaimed a few months or few years ago, among all obfuscating pan-democrats. These self-dubbed "progressists" had perplexed some politically naive Hongkongers as if they can truly help.

These days, citizens have witnessed the pan-dems becoming "pan-fried democrooks" and have seen the mounting localist protests against parallel traders. Even though the restoration movement might not be as successful as expected, the localists have gained the public an upper hand of this battle, whereas these self-claimed "progressive" pan-dems took the credit of the favourable results and left the blames to localists.

What is behind localists' success? It is that the localists all know a cruel fact - "politics is showbiz for ugliness". Instead of getting "halo" or claiming credits, localists are pragmatic and emphasise efficiency - even at the expense of adopting extreme means. For the "Restoring Tuen Mun" social movement, the mainstream media have condemned the localists as severe as possible. But we localists are not going down because of it as we do know one thing - nothing is ever done by the pan-dems because they love sitting on the moral high ground and dodge immediately if being criticised. If it is useful in talking the talk, the valorous localists will never have to walk the walk!

Out of fear, the pan-dems have been avoiding conflicts. Take Umbrella Revolution as an example. Admiralty and Mong Kok are utterly two different worlds back then. Pan-dems were calling the shot in the Admiralty "Big Stage". Can weak flowers living in the greenhouse really be compared to the daredevils in Mong Kok? Leung Kwok-hung "Long Hair", a self-claimed revolutionist, has shown his true colours - a coward - since the valorous confrontational tactics derived in Mong Kok.

What Leung uses to do - hurling bananas or sending coffins to officials - is performance art after all, without a slight of influence. The conflicts between the pan-dems and the localists these days are exactly the continuation of the differences between Admiralty and Mong Kok.

I am a localist, and localists can be unscrupulous - I'm not ashamed to admit it. Why not indulging in the "love and peace" crap as the pan-dems do? Let's see what the Occupy Central movement ended up. Nosediving popularity in the end. And then what? There has been seen no coming back. Talking Chinamen into love and peace is merely casting pearls before swine given that it is their nature to bully the weak, fear the strong and nothing else. They will come after you once you show weakness in front of them.

Do remember what Lu Xun says, "We shall not be afraid of speculating Chinese people with the most malicious intent". Chinamen are not entitled to blame Hongkongers for being ruthless since they never deserve otherwise.

Some leftards might believe, "When you oppose devils, you become one of them." For the record, with the mission to protect our civilised city, we choose to treat Chinamen like barbarians - Barbarians will only be taken aback by acts of their kind. 

Localists dare to deal with Chinamen because there's no mind-shackles towards the suggestions by some "Greater China" faction, which are thoughts such as "the institution is the culprit" and "the party and the country are two separable concepts" so as to harbour their own kind. Leopard cannot change its spots. Even with a different regime, Chinamen are Chinamen.

Imagine the "the party and the country are two separable concepts" discourse stands. It would not be a problem if Japan does not apologise for what they have done in WWII. By this very logic, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association would have nothing to do with Japanese. Therefore there would be no need for today's Japanese to bear the responsibility back then. This logic itself proves what the kind of people Chinamen are. I wouldn't mind if Chinamen mutilate themselves with such retarded thought. But letting them to rule over Hong Kong? The answer is "No", a certain "No".

Democracy and China combined is the best example of Stockholm syndrome. If ever there is some so-called democratic China, it will not change the fact that Chinamen are born colonisers.

Let me ask you a question. If your neighbours have some family disputes, will you intervene between them? Lines are clearly drawn, so "No". Similarly, Hongkongers are not morally obliged to save depraved Chinamen. And the localists are going to kick them out of our home - by all means necessary - before it is too late.

Lam Song-man: Forgiving the Authority-abuse Police is Out of the Question!

Forgiving the Authority-abuse Police is Out of the Question!

Translated by Karen L., Written by Lam Song-man  (林爽文)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/05-17-2015/23011/ 

In 1978 Soviet Union, a nine-year-old girl was murdered. Kravchenko had been arrested, convicted, and put to death in 1983, though he had an alibi. As a matter of fact, the man was extorted confession under police's torture. 24 years later, he was proved innocent － It turned out to be a serial killer Chikatilo who ended the young girl's life. The case says, the arbitrariness of the police is accounted for Kravchenko's death.

With empowered authority, police forces are able to stop people, question them, interrogate them or hold them in detention within a specific period of time. During the course exercising these authorities, pepper sprays, guns, and so on － use of force － are allowed to be adopted. That is to say, a single imprudent mistake could lead to far-reaching drawbacks. In time of Soviet Union, there was Kravchenko killed being falsely accused; in the U.S., there were black youngsters executed in the street; in Malaysia, political figures from the opposition party were pushed from building; in mainland China, numerous housing clearance duties ended with violence.

In Hong Kong, a mentally handicapped person was forced to make a confession of a wrongly accused murder on the police statement. The case was dropped as the police officer fails to carry on his duty by the book. With higher authority than anybody else, upholding morality and strict manner are required in a police officer. Ordinary people lose clients, increase business cost, or harm their companies' reputation as a result of making mistakes, whereas one's freedom will be gratuitously restricted, will be racked from bodily harm or death, will be put in the wrong if a police officer makes mistakes.

A journalist suffered from rough treatment by seven police officers during the Umbrella Revolution, while the matter is still unsettled; a friend of mine was crookedly charged of drug possession (insufficient evidence before the court set my friend free, but it left a rather huge expense.); some activists were searched naked; some activists were beaten on the black maria; sex workers were made acquiesced to police's demands for sex without payment; some protesters were threatened as such "I will take you back to the police station and rape you"... Cases of abuse of authority are simply too many to count.

Originally, citizens empower police officers the authority to serve the society and maintain public order so that one's freedom is being protected. Their neglect of duty damages citizens' rights while they refuse to apologise for their own fault and exhibit arrogance on the public statement. To understand and forgive them for all this? This might be the best situation to quote the former Commissioner of the Hong Kong Police Force Andy Tsang Wai-hung's catchphrase "Out of the question!".

Wing Wing: Unfriendly Hong Kong? Misinterpretation!

Unfriendly Hong Kong? Misinterpretation!

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L. and Kristee Q., Written by Wing Wing (翼雙飛)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/04-12-2015/22307 

The Oriental Daily recently published an article, titled "The Unfriendliest Cities in the World. Hong Kong ranks the 4th", saying that "although the survey conducted by Yahoo Travel did not explain the reason why, it did mention the 'unfriendly people' are mostly youngsters. It could be that reasons may relate to the recent anti-smugglers movement against mainland Chinese tourists."

Right. There are always people who assume young adults are useless, who choose to choose to shift the blame to others despite the fact that business operations are after all the business owner's responsibility, or those people who oppose the anti-smugglers movement -- these people will be more than willing to falsify the news. It is to be expected that they comment, "The image of Hong Kong is now tarnished by these 'useless young'! See! Surveys abroad prove it too! It is exactly what I've been saying..." On the Facebook pages of those pro-government/establishment figures (Translator's note: they are usually written in Chinese rather than English), you will find tonnes of these anti-"youngsters" quotes.

To be fair enough, do not judge a book by its cover and in this case do not judge a news report by its title, or else you will be hoodwinked. Please do take a look of the original survey "The Unfriendliest City in the World is..." and its content -- "The survey group consisted of 2,005 men and women, all from the United States."

Translation. The title "in the World" is obviously misleading -- unless the world consists of the opinions of 2,005 Americans. If you ask 2,000 or so Hongkongers what country's cuisines they love most and publish an article named "The Most Popular Cuisines in the World", does it reflect the truth? Changing the former one into "The Unfriendliest Cities in the eyes of US people" and the latter one into "The Most Popular Cuisines in Hong Kong" is surely closer to what the facts represent. After this clarification of the 'surveys' is there a sense that supposed-to-be factual news report from Oriental Daily is manufactured bullshit tailored for their reader's demographic?

In the comment section of the article, there are many doubts, like "What background do these 2,000 people have? A survey as such can only be worth referencing if the participants have travelled to few countries so that they can draw any conclusions. If a participant has only been to Hong Kong, then honestly does this disqualify the participant from deciding which one is "The Unfriendliest City in the World".

Another travel site Conde Nest Traveler announces "Readers' Choice Awards" on a annually basis. In Readers' Choice Awards 2014, there were approximately 77,000 readers participating in the survey, outnumbering Yahoo's survey. The site ranks Johannesburg, South Africa as the unfriendliest city, while Beijing ranks 6th, whereas Hong Kong isn't on the list. It also lists out all the factors of "unfriendliness", such as location and size of the city, political views, language barriers and so on, but not necessarily people's attitudes. Yes, Yahoo Travel doesn't necessarily have to mention the method it used to conduct the survey. Be it transparent or not, the writer of the news article quoting the survey is definitely not being objective for he/she attempted to put words into those 2,005 participants’ mouths.

The "The Unfriendliest City in the World is..." article from Yahoo Travel is nonsense. After considering the evidence this is certain. Yet the Oriental Daily, regardless of the paper's political bent, supports its allegation about the anti-smugglers movement by using that survey so  people can say, "You see! These useless youths are but tarnishing HK's image!" But when asked for details and for evidence no response has been forthcoming.

I continued in reading the Yahoo Travel article, it says,

"And more millennials considered Hong Kong, China, and Sydney, Australia, to be rude compared with respondents 35 and older."

Some misinterpret this as saying that youngsters in Hong Kong are less friendly than those aged 35 or above. I'm not saying that you shouldn't read newspapers at all, but to be critical -- when you see "it is speculated that", "it is said that", "some say", or any similar sort of such, pay attention and consider whether it's reasonable or not.Surely these news items are not in fact news but merely opinion pieces.In today's Hong Kong, most of the officials, politicians, and media do not bother to do a great job, let alone uphold the spirit that the job implies. It's up to you at the end of the day whether you are manipulated or not.

Cheng Lap: HK is a dangerous time bomb in case China has not yet found out

HK is a dangerous time bomb in case China has not yet found out

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, edited by Karen L., Written by Cheng Lap (鄭立)
Original: http://chenglap-blog.logdown.com/posts/258649-causes-of-conflict-in-sino-hong-kong/ 

Recently, in Hong Kong, several anti-smugglers protests broke out. For the Hong Kong-China conflict, one will naturally see its inevitableness due to the tug-of-war-like political structure when one observes at the scene here in Hong Kong.

To start with the incomplete authority of the Government of the HKSAR is far and away the cause. Precisely, HKSARG has no approval authority on whom and how many Chinese can travel in and immigrate to Hong Kong, and neither is the amount of Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) cities controlled by the HKSARG. "The problem of Hong Kong is an external one," some of my friends from the police force who involved in the Umbrella Revolution once said so. It can be seen that to most of the people, they wrongly assume the HKSARG has such authority, but as a matter of fact it hasn't.

In addition, half of the Legislative Council (LegCo) comprises members of the functional constituency group, who walk into the seat with zero votes. That is, the case in Hong Kong is an oligarchy, and above such government, there is the "comprador bourgeoisie" (includes landlords, merchants and civil servants) back in the colonial era. The Chinese Communist Party attempts to take charge of Hong Kong by controlling the "comprador bourgeoisie" as Brits did. And this time, given their worship over the nabobism and unlimited power among the corrupt Chinese bureaucrats, it only takes a slight effort to do so. Why? The existence of functional constituency leads to the forevermore-below-half elected seats of the membership. By a no-brainer deduction, interests will side with the oligarchs.

By controlling the functional constituency group, executive has more or less managed to control the legislature. One of the separation of powers has merely gone. Social problems like over-population and the everlasting unfavourable results afterwards are not likely to be solved given the imbalanced power of the LegCo. Translation: bills avoiding those problems that are supposed to be passed have been opposed since they do not earn benefits for the vested interests. It has been seen enough vested interests strengthening their self-interests this way.

In 1998, HKSARG dismantled its original LegCo. And the then provisional LegCo, which its bigwig members were basically appointed by the CCP, aimed to abolish the vital policies by the colonial government which had maintained the social stability:

- Rent control. The main policy that limits rent increase. It comes as a wonder to many people why there are less dissatisfaction living under the colonial regime than the CCP. Rent control is one of the many answers as the colonial government restricted both the growth of rent and property price. This policy has fallen apart since 1997 when the oligarchy started to take charge. After that, the property price and rent have been skyrocketed, and those landlords and property owners are laughing their way to the bank. To foreigners, Hong Kong is a place about pricey and tiny flats. And to locals, this is daily life suffering endlessly -- everyone is being exploited and is made to paying rent of some HKD$10,000.

- Public Order Ordinance. Police's authority enhanced and the freedom of assembly and demonstration denied as well, they turn protests against the government from a right to some dangerous thing  -- one might get arrested and detained exercising one's right of protesting peacefully, be searched of one's house out of coming-from-nowhere speculations or get a difficult time. A deterioration of police-civilian relationship is what is leading ahead of Hong Kong. The city has long been famous for peaceful demonstrations, whereas the government decide to neglect their views. Worse still, police force are implemented to stop them from protesting and to file prosecutions against them. All these will only lead Hong Kong to form a ideology as "If a peaceful protest does not bear fruit, why bother?". As I mentioned before, the harder the government blackens and suppresses the peaceful protesters, the more hardcore protesters come to the front of protests.

The change before and after 1997 is lifting the restrictions on the vested interests, as well as allowing the police to attack the public, to which CCP is to blame. It is simply too naive for them to belittle the establishment of a colony and to assume a little effort will do. The communist party think they can rule the place with compradors without knowing that a sound separation of powers behind is more than necessary. Although Hong Kong was removed from the colony list in 1972 (Link 1, Link 2), the CCP still treat Hong Kong as one of them. The CCP has taught their students "Colony is a political entity where the invader controls the compradors" and when the students become the leader of the country, they mistakenly expect applying what the colonisers do is going to guarantee a stable regime as UK back in the colonial era.

The Communist Party itself do not have the separation of powers. Thus there is no any sort of rightful checks and balances to monitor over the compradors. Such regime will inevitably lead to an old-style colonialisation -- all about exploitation, suppression, confrontation and independence.

The election is by no means fair in Hong Kong. In the LegCo, a member might be from over 100,000 votes in geographical constituencies , or 0 votes from functional constituencies. The latter ones are the vested interests and most of them have invested shops and have benefited from IVS and smuggling (Imagine the rent of 1,000-feet shop is worth HKD$1,000,000/USD$129,000 per month -- impossible in the rest of the world). And how did the government deal with the side effect? Suppress.

Letitia Lee, one of the leader from the Blue Ribbon thugs.

Yet, the political infighting involved in Hong Kong at the same time. Some thugs sponsored by Chinese funds and the Falun Gong are putting their Communist-style confrontation in Hong Kong. At first Hongkongers felt "it doesn't matter to me anyway", but gradually they found out that when it comes to things related to the CCP, peaceful tactics are futile, or basically laughing stock.

The government neglects every protest of Hongkongers. They even set up a 3-metre barrier to ban citizens from going inside. In other words, they damage channels and spaces for the government-public communication and protests. Applying police force against protesters, they think that if legal protesting becomes harder and inefficient, the public will give up someday.

Yet the government has miscalculated the situation. The Umbrella Revolution first started with a class boycott with few dozens of people, then tens of thousands of protesters for two to three months of street confrontation -- the root is the miscalculation of the public response. Every riot starts with the thought of "once the authority suppresses, protesters disperse", while the new generation of Hongkongers is now possessing the thought of "more suppression, more confrontation" -- the police ended up using more weapons like tear gas and batons which is a further deterioration to the situation. The more participants in the issue, the more unconventional and guerilla-style confrontational tactics appear -- from a peaceful protest to wearing masks; from willing to cooperate to grabbing fellow protesters from the police force; from protesting to the government to starting anti-smugglers movements.

When the suppression escalates, the tactics of participants escalate causing a vicious cycle. The next bottleneck might be on the "boundary". From the viewpoint of historians, this is a repetition of the period during the end of a colonial era, like Boston Tea Party or the Netherlands' Eighty Years War. The confrontation will take place outside of Hong Kong, maybe in China or overseas. Whatever the government attempts to escalate the suppression against the protesters, it can do nothing outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong.

Since 1997, the education of Hong Kong has been infiltrated with elements from CCP, such as giving salute to the Five-Star Flag, singing March of the Volunteers (PRC's national anthem) and indoctrinating about the CCP. This "Umbrella generation" is grown under such pro-CCP education. But as a teacher, I found that students never for a day like such indoctrination -- the students hate CCP even more after being sent to the military training camp in there. Students found these coercive behaviour strangle which causes a more anti-CCP generation than ever.

Although most of the Hongkongers assert new immigrants are "diluting" the population of Hong Kong, quite a few of the "Umbrella Generation" are the offspring of new immigrants, and some may even receive their primary education in mainland China. Lives have not been easy for them since the moment coming to Hong Kong. Caught between two stools, a strong sense of anti-CCP awareness appears to them -- there is no way can they go back in China and live happily ever after. It is the sole road for them to strengthen their own Hongkonger identity, so as to be more "Hongkonger" than a "Hongkonger".

This reasoning may sound off, but it makes every sense of it. Historically speaking, Napoleon was the French emperor, but he was from Corsica; Adolf Hitler was the Führer of Germany, but he was from Austria; Joseph Stalin was the leader of USSR, but he was from Georgia. These "foreigners" have nothing in the first place. Hong Kong received almost a million new immigrants alike, and this very thought has grown more than prevalent among such generation.

Also, Renminbi (Chinese Yuan) is not a freely convertible currency, whereas HKD has pegged to USD through Linked Exchange Rate system. Hong Kong is the only Common Law jurisdiction in the Greater China region. Our legal system is similar to the UK and the US. Our currency, passport and legal system are internationally acknowledged. Any cities in PRC, including Shanghai, cannot attain that, even their property price skyrockets or they have a record-high GDP.

(Source: Pixabay)

This is one of the blind spots when people look into HK-China relationship -- there is a vital and inseparable interest behind. The biggest wealth of Hong Kong is the system independent from the CCP, and the compradors know this. They know the CCP will not act rashly in Hong Kong, and so they try all means to gain interests in Hong Kong with the support of CCP. The HKSAR passport and those related companies have become springboards for many important CCP figures in leaving CCP. The compradors do not care to aggravate conflicts or the other way round. They can leave Hong Kong whenever they want even if anything bad appears. High-ranked officials in Hong Kong, including CY Leung's family, are basically abroad. Imagine any major unfavourable issue happens in Hong Kong, these officials could land at some overseas countries safely leaving behind a RMB economy bomb with the citizens.

Many people have a thought that empowering elites the full authorities is what makes things work, and makes things work well, however, in the case of Hong Kong, it reveals the absolute power has every ability to turn people corrupt. It is because the one could use the absolute power in hand to serve one's self-interests and to get away with the responsibilities. A friend of mine from the CCP, who is rather open-minded, says that many people undermines the complexity of the Hong Kong society. China has taken a dangerous time bomb. After the 70s, Hong Kong can no longer be seen as a colony, but few people are aware of that.

Wing Wing: On Donation to China vs Japan

On Donation to China vs Japan

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, edited by Kristee Q, written by Wing Wing (翼雙飛)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/05-12-2015/22920 

(GBTimes; in Hong Kong, a citizen donates money to World Vision for Sichuan Earthquake in China)

It has been four years since the 2011 earthquake in Japan. It had been a while since March, but whatthe Japanese did in that time was more than impressive. In June 2011, the Japanese thanked Taiwan by putting advertisements in two Taiwan newspapers thanking them for their efforts in the, earthquake. This year some Japanese NGOs expressed their gratitude by doing volunteer work in superman suits and last March a Japanese restaurant owner in Taipei gave out free curry rice for a week so as to thank the enthusiasm shown by the Taiwanese people.

Some people might say Japanese are over-pretentious as they predominantly show their polite side to others but on the other hand shouldn't we see this as a sign of being educated? To thank those who have helped his/her country in plight is a sign of politeness - putting the word "pretentious"aside, Japanese has won in terms of politeness. When a child receives a gift that he doesn't like much and he still thanks that person, would you say that he is pretentious? If he pouted and remained silent, or even made a long face, would you say that he was sincere and tell him "you don't have to thank others if you don't like the gift"? You simply wouldn't because thanking others is a form of politeness and virtue.

In China, during the Eastern China Flood and Wenchuan Earthquake (seven years ago), tears shed for their victims were uncountable in Hong Kong. Very many people donated their own money to help the flood victims and those who disagreed with such donations were condemned as "cold-hearted". But what have we got in return for our genuine distress and wish to help? Has any Chinese tourists thanked us for "giving a helping hand in our plight"? Are there Chinese putting advertisements in newspapers thanking us? No. Instead we hear of some Chinese tourists humiliating Hongkongers: "If it isn't us [coming], your Hong Kong is certainly doomed!" or "China has arisen, you Hongkong-dogs are jealous of us being rich!"

For sure, these people don't represent all Chinese but Hongkongers are being humiliated online and offline. How can people expect Hongkongers to donate when there are many charities raising donations for China? A decision to donate hinges on how the donor feels about the place and its people. I have a few words for those genuine victims: "Your compatriots are tirelessly zealous in humiliating those who have helped you. If they are so rich and powerful, can you really blame others not seeing the need to help you? Not to mention how much money has been pocketed during the donation process, after many Chinese charity scandals have been exposed."

Therefore it is not strange for Hongkongers to show unwillingness to donate to China.

Some "patriots" might say, "Are Japanese worth emulating? They have tonnes of problems, such as..." Certainly Japan has tonnes of problems, but why don't we learn from their positive attributes? If a nation only nit-picks at others and feels comfortable doing so without learning from their good points such nation will inevitably degenerate slowly but surely.

Maron: Put A Stop To "Construct A Democratic China"

Put A Stop To "Construct A Democratic China"

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, edited by Kristee Q, written by Maron
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-27-2015/22006/ 

Richard Tsoi and Lee Cheuk-yan. (aTV)

The tertiary student sector appears to be "bidding farewell to Greater China" - deflecting from the pan-dem's trajectory of "constructing a democratic China".

The Greater China faction has fabricated tales to draw support for "constructing a democratic China", such as the discourse of "de facto governance of Hong Kong by CCP". There are two logical errors in this proposition. First, if Country X governs Hong Kong, then Hongkongers have to fight for democracy and freedom for the people from Country X? No, of course not.  Are Hongkongers "universal democratic fighters"? Second, the relationship between China and Hong Kong is the relationship of the rapist and the victim. When the victim cannot escape from the iron fist and sympathises with the rapist, this is called "Stockholm Syndrome". When rapists have democracy and freedom, will they not rape others? A leopard will not change its spots.

Another discourse to be considered is the "geopolitics of HK and China". As China is close to Hong Kong, then it has to interfere with our affairs. Vietnamese refugees have seriously affected Hong Kong in the past, so we have to "construct a democratic Vietnam"?

Also, "a democratic China benefits Hong Kong" discourse says democracy in China will be conducive to HK's autonomy. Chinese people hate HK's prerogative (border/passport/tax revenue...), and there are no signs  that this discourse is an effective path, or worse, they will use "the majority rules" and metamorphosise Hong Kong into an utterly Chinese entity. Autonomy? Daydreaming. Such discourse is beyond logic.

The Pan Dem's theory and actions are beyond comprehension. What have they accomplished in the many years following their hollow slogan of "constructing a democratic China"? They don't have a plan,but  rather the utilisation of another Ponzi scheme to extract money from pan-dem supporters! They offer all kinds of sops and excuses, such as China banning them from entering the mainland -- is there any country allowing such an opposition party from entering its own territory? Stowing away is a common tactic adopted by revolutionaries, why isn't there anyone adopting the tactic? Don't tell me it's illegal, the Occupy movement is technically illegal too, so isn't it more worthwhile to stow away so as to achieve the goal of "constructing a democratic China"? The basis of such construction should be in China, not Hong Kong. Try to explain in 1989, why Lee Cheuk-yan had to sign his confession letter and return to Hong Kong? Why not instigate rebellion in those  political prisoners in Qincheng Prison and create a Chinese Storming of Bastille? It seems that these "seniors" are afraid of death. They love fame and fortune from the local political arena, and as a natural progression of this fear they have started to dream of "constructing a democratic China". It is absurd to continue the formulaic procedures of chanting slogans at every  Tian'anmen Massacre vigil. Those who appear  on  stage are unabashed, and appear complacent when they do so. To be frank, it is just a joint celebratory  wanking party.

Waiting for the  situation to change in China is spineless and  passive. Those evil Greater Chinese ignoramuses do not want to take the huge risk in China, yet they are willing to wait and take credit once there are some signs of democratic development there. Even the appearance of mass movements does not mean that all Chinese people want democracy. Wukan villagers have said they did not seek the overturn of CCP. Chinese people do not want democratic China nor to overturn the CCP regime - that's it! Why force them? We should respect their choice. Pan-dems want political gains, and to  bind China and Hong Kong together by chanting slogans like "No democratic Hong Kong when there is no democratic China". They often fantasise about the reform in China. They have not realised that most  Chinese people do not want to change, and Hongkongers do. Hong Kong is our land. A leftard, Ben Lam, said Chinese are our war-fellows -- he is ignorant and therefore unimportant to HK. Apple Daily and Ming Pao are both leftard-leaning. Hongkongers have to wake up, and not turn Chinese people into cannon fodder -- it is unrealistic and unethical and the bottom line is that it is ineffectual.

Stop "constructing a democratic China". Stop being a nuisance.