Lewis Loud: Stanley Cheung Incident Unveils Ethnic Mentality of HK (with BG)

Stanley Cheung Incident Unveils Ethnic Mentality of HK
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Lewis Loud
Original: http://dadazim.com/journal/2015/07/national-mental-illness/ 

Basic info about Stanley Cheung Incident. In 1996, Stanley Cheung Yun-hang, his classmates and two teachers went to Pat Sin Leng for hiking. A cigarette butt was found, and had caused Pat Sin Leng hill fire, which caused the deaths of two teachers and three students from HKCWC Fung Yiu King Memorial Secondary School and left 13 others injured. Cheung himself was severely burned. Recently [in late June/early July], there are a lot of discussion as there was a dust blast incident in Taiwan, causing over 500 injuries, with most victims seriously burned. Stanley Cheung claimed that he was invited by Taiwan organisations and he hoped that he can encourage the victims with his past experience, yet it has caused a serious rebounce on the Internet. People also cast doubt on him, as he again tries to use his fame to promote himself even when a Taiwan netizen asked him not to go. Yet, on 30th June, Cheung brought the camera team from TVB programme The Scoop to Taiwan, which contradicts to what he said before -- "no camera during hospital visits". There were certain classmates saying that Cheung was the one who left the cigarette butt and caused the hillfire and left their comments on Facebook, but soon they were deleted by Cheung. After being accused, Cheung finally admitted he smoked back then on an interview by Apple Daily (3rd July), but denied leaving a cigarette butt, and even said "so what even if you find the truth", further aggravating the emotions of his former classmates and netizens.

The controversy over Stanley Cheung incident unveils the ethnic mentality of Hong Kong.

First, it shows the superstition towards professionals, which was bred since the 1970s. Many people think that reconstructing the news reports, Coroner's report and statements are "just a few sentences by the netizens" or "there's no cost of doing that", so they disdain such articles.

These people will share the posts from journalists, and believe in the spin doctors for Cheung in Ming Pao or Apple Daily, and disdain the evidence or reconstruction. These are superstition towards professionals. When reporters say something, the mass believes in them; but for "commoners" or online media, even if they spend lots of time to investigate on the hill-fire and to prove the discrepancy between what Cheung has said and what the victims said back then, these people will still think "it's just a few sentences by the netizens". They have the exact same attitude as Cheung, "So what if you find out the truth?"

Those who blindly follows the "professional journalists" will automatically filter the voices from "the netizens".

Education aims to make complete men. After the industrial revolution, men are divided into different streams and professions, with intellectual barriers -- you don't know much about mine, I don't know much about you. As a result, people are more professional than before, and have fewer common sense than before. 

With fewer common sense, there are also superstitions towards other professions: Stanley Cheung studied social work, psychology and counselling. With a burnt face and his rehab experience, he becomes the "professional" and has the final say. It becomes a matter of course for him to visit the victims in Taiwan. So, they have simply neglected the common sense that victims should not be interfered by others when they were in the initial stage (not to mention Stanly Cheung's face).

A friend of mine studies journalism. He told me many of his classmates liked the spinning "coverage" from Ming Pao, which criticised netizens "writing a few sentences which involve no cost". Those journalists-to-be are, as usual, very arrogant.

As journalists think highly of themselves, those senior lecturers could make their students to believe that "the truth will and only will be shown to the world by journalists". So what they blindly support is their say. They don't understand the Internet is growing so rapidly that information is easily obtainable. We are now in 2015, not 1996, an era when people used IE or Yahoo, or "journalists" could impact people's minds with their pens.

Big channels or newspapers are not God. The truth does not necessarily have to be shown by their hands. Mainstream media no longer have the authority they used to enjoy, thanks to self-censorship and brown-nosing Beijing.

Second, the controversy has shown the "mediocrity" which a lot of Hongkongers crave for. Blue-ribbon uncles or market aunties bash the Occupy Movement because they hate "noises". Those who oppose to unveil the truth of the Pat Sin Leng Hill Fire hate the "Internet noises". They do not care about the truth nor justice, nor whether this "life warrior" has caused others' death. These people 
just want the world "look peaceful" or listen only to good deeds by others. No in-depth investigation, no "noises".

You don't want noises, don't you? You just want your good old days, living happily forever, is that so? You are just like "Blue Ribbons". Don't tease at them. They listen to TVB, you listen to the "Big Stage". Stop calling the pot black, you kettle.

Ching Wing See: Conscience in Sale

Conscience in Sale
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Ching Wing See
Original: https://www.facebook.com/CemeteryNew/photos/a.729801777127442.1073741829.729586907148929/860745910699694

Do you think the "psychic" hired by Blind Sports Federation know that she fails Mr Lam Wing-shun, the victim in BSF's scandal? Do you think the staff in Kei Chun Primary School will not see the female victim in their dreams? They know it. They might be kind, but they sell the conscience for money.

Nowadays, doctors, judges, teachers in Hong Kong sell their conscience too. They lied in front of everyone for the sake of money. They are so ludicrous that no one would believe in them. But they are still lying shamelessly. Why? After fame, fortune and authority.

Will we sell our conscience because of these? Or in other words, how much is your conscience?

I am not confident enough to answer for you. The world today no longer praises people with conscience, and instead, brings villains to the shiny stage. But should we still have conscience?

I can tell you, karma is slow but sure. Villains are often long-lived, or enjoy enviable lives. The world seems unfair. But if every one is without conscience, then this city will be tantamount to the country across the border.

Conscience is "calling a spade a spade"; speak for the truth and righteousness. Conscience is our best quality.

They sell cheaply their conscience for position or property. But do you want these money? Are you trading the future of Hong Kong with this amount of money? There are a lot of jerks, but would you be one of them?

My dear friends, you are conscious. Professionalism and conscience might be exchanged by money, but as long as you still love Hong Kong, please be upright with us.


The Fate of The One and Only Martyr's Shrine in Hong Kong

The Fate of One and Only Martyr's Shrine in Hong Kong: Po Yin Fat Yuen, Tiu Keng Leng
Info: Begonia ROC History and Geography; Integration and Translation: Hong Kong Columns – Translated

(by Begonia ROC History and Geography)
Founded in 1952, Po Yin Fat Yuen was located at 78, Area 3, Tiu Keng Leng by a guru from Yonghe Temple, Peking. Before coming to Hong Kong, he had collected photos of the 72 Martyrs' in the Second Guangzhou Uprising, and wished to build a Martyr's Shrine in Hong Kong for those martyrs who have sacrificed in the 1911 Uprising and Second Sino-Japanese War. He provided psychological support for those Kuomintang Army in TKL who could not go to Taiwan.

In 1949, the People's Liberation Army aggressed southward, and the KMT army could only retreat to Hong Kong, which was then a British territory. In order to avoid any clashes with the underground Communist party members, they were relocated to Rennie's Mill (now Tiu Keng Leng). The Hong Kong Government waited the some 8,000 soldiers and officials for Taiwan to collect, but most of them could not go to Taiwan, so they started their lives in Tiu Keng Leng then. Most of the KMT army directly participated in the war against Japan, and after their death, they will be worshipped in this Fat Yuen by the alive with offerings and incense sticks.

In 1996, Tiu Keng Leng was demolished by the Government. Po Yin refused to leave, so the Government rent them the former Tiu Keng Leng Police Station with nominal costs. In June 2015, after 75 years since the end of the War, the HKSARG sent riot police to force the Shrine to leave. Lau Kin-kwok, the person-in-charge, burnt his hand as a form of protest.

Lau told reporters that the Fat Yuen will very likely be allocated to Heaven of Hope Christian Services (HOHCS) for building a hotel, as part of the development plan in District Council. His Fat Yuen did not receive any bid invitation, but only the HOHCS did. Lau doubted that there might be advantage conferment.

The Sai Kung District Council decided to force the Fat Yuen away without consulting the victim, nor the public. Even if they receive so much letters supporting the Fat Yuen, they simply neglected them, and only sent bid invitation to HOHCS. Is this still Hong Kong?


Polymer: Enlightenment to Hongkongers through the Korean farmers

Enlightenment to Hongkongers through the Korean farmers
Translated by S. Lai, edited by Chen-tang, written by Polymer HK Editorial Team
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2015/07/04/17846/ (Originally on Issue 21, PolymerHK) 

‘Down! Down! WTO!’ Can you still hear any echo of this slogan in your mind? The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial Conference was held from 11 to 18 December 2005 in Hong Kong when a group of foreign protesters, mostly South Korean farmers, protested against globalisation. Not only did their struggle seize everyone’s attention, they even inspired all Hongkongers’ vision, sowing the seed towards civil disobedience. Our protest and struggle are never the same hitherto.

Before the Korean farmers came...
In the past, there is only one mode in demonstrating; Setting off from the Victoria Park, the crowd would march according to the designated route orderly, or even robotically, leaving no rubbish on the streets. As the pan-democrats led the march and the chanting, they made their speeches when the crowd eventually arrive at the Government headquarter in the evening, followed by people leaving and heading back home. This was the monotonous ceremony following the tradition of the1st July demonstration.

As Lau Sai-leung once said, “Mainstream middle-class people were the pivot of the 1st July Demonstration in 2003 together with barristers and professionals. They have a “fetish with order”, or are even in a state of indulgence. They fear physical conflicts, troubles and criticisms from the media, resulting in such a strolling protest. Protesters would walk around the venue and leave, forgetting the real target behind demonstrations and protests. As social movements are belittled to a way of living, they now lose their due impact, castrated by the host of the rally.’

Leung Man-tao (Translator's note: a leftard Hong Kong columnist renowned in China) also criticised such demonstration culture. He commented in  “They are almost burnt to death. We are yet still only the audience”, “ever since the 1st July Demonstration in 2003, “rationality” has become a phrase in a standard account of Hong Kong democratic movement. To those who study collective action, collective action confers a sense of identity to all participants, uniting them and even creating a brand new collective identity. For everyone who has gone to this rally, most of them must agree that “while we Hongkongers are determined to pursue democracy, we are too rational in our action.” “Rationality” thus becomes a Hongkongers’ proof of our own identity and a standard in determining whether protests are good or bad. Under such logic, “rationality”, under the eyes of Hongkongers, is afterall mere observance of orders. Unruly walking and running on the streets is not in accordance to order and thus irrational; demonstrating on stilts or skateboards are thus of course unruly and irrational as well. In case (just in case) when one makes use of self-immolation in protest, it shall be undoubtedly opposite to rationality, an act of complete insanity. In the other way round, it is absurd that we still find ourselves ‘rational’ when we generalise people as “irrationality” given that we don’t understand their reasons to protest or adopt totally different means in protest.’

‘Public intellectuals’ might be unsatisfied, but the general public took such practice for granted, or were even proud of it, until the Korean farmers shocked everyone.

A Moral Appeal: Protest through Performing Arts
Korean farmers might still go on demonstration and followed assigned routes to the protest areas, but they were not like the Hongkongers who had only made use of their mouths and their legs. As a blogger has once stated, the demonstration culture in Hong Kong limits the possibility and creativity of body movements to mere ‘walking’, restraining us from breaking through the current spacial settings.

The Korean farmers never confined themselves. They knew their aim to seek as much attention as they could in order to make their demands concerned by the general public. The classic three-step-and-a-kowtow is the most well-known act of the Korean farmers, which was somehow an impersonation of worshippers paying respect to buddhas at Tibet and showing an utmost pious attitude. Putting on knee pads and gloves and under the lead of the drum, for every three strides they took while shouting ‘Down Down WTO’, they kowtowed at the ground with their hands clapped together. These scenes were truly striking and moving to Hongkongers then. The media unanimously reported such protesting means from a positive perspective, i.e. the Oriental Daily described such asceticism as ‘The Moving Jang-geum Spirit’ in its headline, inducing Hongkongers’ reflection on the pros and cons of globalised trade.

Apart from asceticism, music was played, Korean ‘aunties’ danced in traditional Korean style and sang to raise the morale amid the rythme of the hand drums. According to report of ‘Cool Loud Web’,‘ another group of female Korean farmers held colourful sticks up high while two of them pushing the speakers and props forward. With their self-written songs, one led the crowd to sing with a microphone, the other followed and made their moves. During the bridge, on one hand, they chanted slogans of “Down Down WTO”, “Down Down FTA”, “Bye Bye USA” and “Bye Bye Bush”, or, on the other, yelled “We love Hong Kong” to the citizens energetically. Though I could never understand the speeches made by the one holding the microphone during the bridge or performance, the speeches are more like jokes among them, delighting everyone.’

As the ‘Cool Loud Web’ commented, chanting  in demonstrations in Hong Kong and Taiwan were mostly led by the leaders on stage and followed by the rest of the participants. Not only did it lack interaction among different groups, it failed to influence or interact with the general public or passers-by. Therefore, while people might have tried to mobilise as many people as they could for the demonstration, their chanting caused a totally opposite result. As the old Chinese saying goes, “Their spirit was aroused by the first roll or the drums, but was depleted by the second. And it was completely exhausted by the third”. The inability to gain an official promise from the government eventually exhausted the morale of the crowd. The Korean farmers’ demonstration yet allowed everyone to be starred, enhancing the camaraderie and even influencing the general public through interactions. The course of the demonstration manifested their aims.
The asceticism of Korean farmers moved many Hongkongers back then. (Apple Daily)

Dauntless towards bloodshed: militant protest and struggle
Still, it is afterall the intense physical confrontation that attracted the most flashlights. The Korean farmers had never given up on using physical confrontation ever since the start of the protest. The following are only some of  the ‘moves’ that were used:
  1. Pulling down rods from metal barricades and sharpening bamboo sticks to attack police
  2. Protesting through jumping into the sea and attempting to swim to the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre (HKCEC) (venue of the WTO Ministerial Conference)
  3. Using cling wrap and umbrellas to protect themselves from pepper spray
  4. Spraying extinguisher at the police
  5. Using metal barricades to form a L-shape bulwark for charging at the police cordon
  6. Burning coffins
  7. Attempting to push police cars over
  8. Occupying the Gloucester Road
  9. Seizing police shields (returned after the protest)
  10. Damaging public properties and charging through roadblocks

While these were only moves in 2005, can the level of protest in Hong Kong get closer to the Korean farmers’ today after 10 long years?

The protest entered its climax on 17th December. The Korean farmers upgraded their protest at Wan Chai that afternoon. A series of charging enabled them to go through the police cordon and attempt to intrude the new wing of HKCEC to stop the WTO Ministerial Conference. They eventually forced the police to shoot 34 gas grenades and mobilise armoured carriers and shoot super sock rounds. Unlike the original positive report, the media described the incident as ‘tumult’ or ‘uprising’, shifting the focus from anti-globalisation to violent confrontation.

Police using OC foam, commonly known as pepperspray (Apple Daily)

The several physical confrontations between the farmers and the police force allows Hongkongers the audience to discern the difference in level between  ‘violent protest’ and ‘physical confrontation’. As Lau Sai-leung explained in his article “The Logic Behind Mass Movement -- the Physical Showcase of Korean Farmers”, violent protest is to create the most chaotic effect with the major aim being disturbing social order through various means, namely: burning vehicles, throwing stones and assaulting shops, looting and attacking police with violence; another kind of violent protest has clear demands, attempting to put people’s political demands on the social agenda through the protest and inducing much discussion through the media. Physical confrontation then becomes a ‘theatrical performance’ in a mass movement. Farmers are required to be focused and passionate. Physical confrontation has to be vibrant from a journalist perspective and is thus capable to be starred in the headlines on the coming day. Still, when it is a mere showcase, one must recognises its bottom line. One cannot seriously damage the body of the opponent with offensive weapons, disturb the social order and attack other parties.

Protesters attempted to push over the police patrol car. (Cable News)
Farmers attacked police with fire extinguisher (TVB News)

The incident ended in peace at last, but the farmers’ protest shocked the youngsters participating in social movements then, giving rise to much opinion concerning the 1st July Demonstration and peaceful demonstrations. Such mode in protesting also gradually blends into the local protests.

How the Hong Kong "students" copied it
Quite a few of post-80s youngsters either directly participated in the anti-WTO protest, or witnessed their protesting means through the television. The influence from the farmers can thus be clearly seen in these youngsters’ participation in social movements.

The Korean "teachers" showed Hong Kong two ways out: peaceful protest for moral appeal with the element of performing arts, or militant protest to attract public concerns through physical confrontation.

We could clearly see the Korean influence from the protest against High Speed Railway in 2009. Post-80s youngsters impersonated "asceticism", initiating the 15-hour-per-day "5-constituency asceticism" in which participants knelt for every 26 steps they took, symbolising the 26-kilometre-long high speed rail (XRL). Protesters held rice and seeds with hands, representing public money and Tsoi Yuen Tsuen. It lasted for four days and three nights, from Sheung Shui Metropolis Plaza to LegCo until 8th January, the day of vote on the XRL appropriation, en route five Legislative Council geographical constituencies.

Anti-XRL movement is the beginning of the localisation of asceticism. (Apple Daily)
In subsequent social movements, i.e. strike at the container terminal, protest over the constitutional reform controversies, asceticism was also made use of by youngsters in showing their demands, in hope of raising people awareness on the issue as a result of such moral appeal.

Youngsters supported workers in the strike in the container terminal (2013; Apple Daily)
Some university students knelt and walked in Causeway Bay, asking people to join the 1st July Demonstration. (2014)
Apart from long kowtow, asceticism ‘had gradually mutated’, with examples of standing in silence, protest through reading or even throwing eggs on themselves. They are similar in the sense that they try to influence the indifferent people to beware of the concerned issues through afflicting their own bodies (long period standing, kneeling, dirtying the bodies). In doing so, they could expand their influence and have more people participating in social movements.

A "reading confrontation" by 21st Century Youth, with the meaning to defend independent thinking and be in pursuit of knowledge - said to be following an Italian movement, Sentinelle In Piedi.
A mother of two threw herself with 1,000 eggs, "to express the helplessness and guilt of not being able to change the future for the next generation", outside LegCo. (15 Jan 2015)

Yvonne Leung, president of 2014 cabinet of HKUSU, and other university students stood in silence in MTR stations and platforms to urge passengers not to forget the Tian'anmen Massacre. The placards they held read: "4th June 1989/Too sorrowful to remember/Dare not to forget".
Besides, singing is also an important item in performing protest in Hong Kong.

Such performing protest was once dubbed as ‘happy protest’ by Wan Chin, a political commentator, who said in his article,‘in terms of its modus operandi, happy protest is to face hardship, inspire and gather a crowd with contentment. It shall utilise the power of the crowd to make the suppressors fear, it shall spread the happy lifestyle of the public and thus make the suppressors ashamed and give in. By then we shall be freed.’ He disagreed with forced revolution back then,‘any beginning with forced protest would only make the disadvantaged even more frustrated: when the weaponry are so scanty and meagre as compared to the authority, it is a must to stir up an irrational hatred and an unprecedented war to annihilate humanity (e.g. terrorist attack), which shall only sacrifice many fellows. The authority would only put together an even more well-knitted ideology and implement even more brutal means.

‘Happy protest’ had quite a good impact at the first place, namely the much awareness raised after the 5-constituency asceticism during the protest against the XRL. Some of its participants are still pivots in social movements nowadays. But as time goes by, doubts have been casted on the effectiveness of such peaceful protesting means. People who are in favour of such means may even be called as ‘retards’.

The farmers’ image of militant charging has been influencing our local social movements bit by bit. While it was asceticism on this side, seizure of metal barricades and siege of the LegCo building were exactly the other side of the scene. There was even suggestion of occupying streets and roads (though it was rejected eventually).

After the WTOMC protest, grabbing barricades become one of the must-do in social activism, and is a symbol of "being radical". (left: Apple Daily)
The League of Social Democrats was formed in 2006 representing the proportion of radical democrats in Hong Kong politics. Three members of the League even became legislative councillors in 2008, enabling struggle with cooperation inside and outside of the Council.

Member of the League have had various so-called ‘radical’ actions over the years, namely ‘hurling bananas’or‘throwing eggs’at government officials. Apart from such radicalness in action, the League also initiated the ‘Five Constituencies Referendum’ with the Civic Party in 2010, which was regarded as a new attempt in Hong Kong democratic development. Though the League was split into two and led to the formation of the People Power in 2011, radical actions in the council and struggles on streets have never come to an end with ever growing support. In 2012, the People Power, the League and some independent councillors initiated a filibuster, shelving the new ministerial line-up proposal. Filibuster has also been adopted ever since by radical councillors as a usual practice in protest in the Council.

Hong Kong politics has only gone more gloomy after CY Leung took office. The Umbrella Revolution was the only result when the Hong Kong government ordered the police force to shoot tear gas grenades at the crowd gathering around the government headquarters on 28th September 2015 due to their opposition to the 31st August framework.

The Umbrella Revolution was regarded by quite a number as a milestone in Hong Kong social movement due to the various rare or even unprecedented protesting means adopted ever since the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong. Examples include self-initated blockade of roads leading to the total paralysis of all major highways in Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay and roadblocks reinforced with concrete and bamboo scaffolding.

Left: Breaking the glass of LegCo complex with barricade in Umbrella Revolution, 2014;
Right: Scrambling over barricades and shields in Korean farmers' protest, 2005.

Besides, protesters started to beware of the importance of self-defence. They purchased helmets, home-made shields and protective gears for cycling to defend against batons. They also protected their eyes from pepper spray with umbrellas, goggles or cling wrap. Face masks or even gas masks were used against tear gases.

Protesters even started having a sense to ‘attack’ instead of mere defending. Of course it was not like how the Korean farmers fought with the police in hand-to-hand combat or attacked with metal rods, but they did form L-shape bulwark and pressed against the police as how the Korean farmers had done. When the LegCo complex was charged, even though it stirred up much controversy, some might even criticise those initiators as ‘spies’, it shows that quite a number of people were no longer satisfied with symbolic radical actions like ‘hurling bananas’. They demanded and initiated more direct actions.
Left: Barricade bulwark in Umbrella Revolution; Right: by Korean farmers (Apple Daily)

These were never possible in the past ‘strolling demonstration’.

Localism has been on the rise since 2011 which even raised criticisms on traditional pan-democrats demonstration or even social movements led by the left wing. Wan Chin, the proposer of the City-state Discourse, said,‘the failure of the anti-XRL protest in 2009 was mostly due to its difficulty in carrying out populist promotion as a result of its relation with China's assimilation in Hong Kong, forced relocation of Tsoi Yuen Tsuen and agricultural conservation. Even though various means, i.e. filibustering, asceticism and conservation participation (I also assisted the post-80s social movement and proposed tactics in the ‘happy protest’) were used, it still ended in failure. I reflected for quite a while after that and made use of my own populist method in handling conflicts on China's assimilation in Hong Kong. Since then I went separate ways with the Post-80s social movement leaders. I made my decisions in 2012 on various matters -- to use populism or not, to summarise my discourse or uphold all truth, to succeed or fail and to protect Hongkongers’ livelihood or my own reputation. Many people has since recognised my changes. I am no longer all kind.’

He gradually constructed his own localist discourse since the start of the incident concerning the‘Action Plan for Livable Bay Area of the Pearl River Estuary’ and proposed the brand-new ‘valorous struggle’. Such is certainly a backlash to his formerly proposed ‘happy protest’, a criticism on past social movements which were only ‘peaceful, rational, non-violent and non-swearing’ (PRNN). People now must make a change in society through threatening the government with blood shed on and conflict with the police and the government.

Theory on valorous struggle has gained widespread support from youngsters. The direct confrontation between the crowd and the police force at Mong Kok during the Umbrella Revolution is regarded as an example of ‘valorous struggle’. Apart from that, one can also see light of valorous struggle from the restoration activities against parallel trading.

There is yet criticism on the bad impression on citizens that militant struggle may create and its damage on the image of democratic movement. Some also claimed that while the proposers of militant struggle never took the lead at the front and led the charge, they stirred up supporters to be mere ‘pawns’.

Saying Korean farmers enlighten the protection awareness of Hongkongers directly might not be so accurate, as Hongkongers already know what to do when the cops are pepperspraying. (Apple Daily)

Taking separate ways, or it is ‘all roads leading to Rome’?
Supporters of ‘happy protest’ and ‘valorous struggle’ have been criticising, teasing or being hostile towards each other in current social movements. The animosity may even be deeper than with the pro-Beijing camp. Both criticise one another’s tactics to be useless or may be counter-productive. Yet looking back at the display of the anti-WTOMC movement by the Korean farmers, we can see a total combination of ‘peacefulness, rationality and non-violence’ and ‘valour’: Korean 'aunties' gave out flowers and balloons to the police on one hand, digressed from the designated route when the police were inattentive or even assaulted them on the other; they influenced the passers-by with the pathetic asceticism, and attracted the media attention through physical confrontation at the same time.

Besides, a controversy over whether the crowd need any organisation or a stage with a leader has always been raised during the Umbrella Revolution. The Korean farmers’ manoeuvres were well organised and trained, who had even examined the venue and street environment before the WTO Ministerial Conference was held, according to the information from a participant; they also rehearsed their manoeuvres in their residing holiday camps during their period of protest in Hong Kong. Their actions were all well planned and drafted, considering the reaction from the locals. As Dae Jang-geum was then popular in Hong Kong, they thus played its theme song.

Both soft and hard approaches were adopted by the Korean farmers. While seizing the shields from the police, they returned right after the demonstration; flowers were given on one hand, fight was in the air on the other. They took different means according to the situation. No matter it was the militant or conciliatory side, they never criticised one another and cooperated closely together.

Militancy and peacefulness may seem to be two separate ways, they actually go back to one single path. Struggles in Hong kong yet further divide the two. Will there ever be a day when the two can be joint and their might can be fully manifested?


RW: The Evil of CCP Is But Condoned by the Chinese People

The Evil of CCP Is But Condoned by the Chinese People
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, edited by Karen L., written by Robin Wilde (Polymer HK) 
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2015/05/01/15200/ 
(Image source: Progressive Today)
Recently, an article titled "Mainlanders Are Not To Blame, Communisty Party Is" was published on HKDash (a website founded by the Scholarism). The author Crystal Yip sees tainted food, human trafficking and education problem as responsibility solely for the Communist Party. Yip thought that Chinese people should be free from the blame due to the constant brainwash. Becoming one after another ignorant individuals and having the foggiest idea of the concept of freedom as a result of it, Chinese people, to Yip, are innocent.

From Yip's point of view, it seems obvious that she has been overestimating the prowess of CCP. Indeed there is brainwashing education in China. There is no doubt about it. But do note that China is no North Korea. People in China can get access to online information from the outside, though they are expected to encounter some blockages at first. By "climbing over the wall" (fanqiang), these "difficulties" can be got rid of right away. And when you look at the websites based in China, even the popular ones Weibo and Tianya Forum, you'll find as much in-depth grumbles and sarcasm from its people as in Hong Kong, or even more.

Chinese people may hold a grudge against the Party, while it's a different matter to go against it. In the Umbrella Revolution and Anti-Smugglers Movement involving HK-China conflicts, they tended to stay in the Party's side and addressed Hongkongers as "running dogs and slaves of foreigners" despite the fact that they whine about the Party at other times.

To some, such phenomenon is the after-effect of CCP's effort on rigging the public sentiment for nationalism. But then it also shows that Chinese people know what the Party does, whereas they choose to accept it and indulge it.

Some, similar to Yip, regard Chinese people as a bunch of benighted puppets. This misrepresentation reveals itself when tonnes of Chinese students rush into the US and Europe. They study aboard, but the end game is to get a job and permanent residence over there. However they support China on Facebook or Youtube, most of them will stick their feet overseas and few will return.

A decade after the 9/11 attack, Phoenix News interviewed a Chinese U-grad. He said he was happy to see the US "being bullied", and the ones who had done it are heroes. Shortly after the speech, he mentioned his love to America and his plan to be studying there. Speaking of his future, he, in front of the painting of Mao Zedong on Tian'anmen, said happily, "I will be staying there [in the US] as long as I can."

Often do Chinese behaviours go opposite direction with their minds. They may love their motherland, while their bodies follow one's animal instinct -- choosing the best proposal for oneself.

Crystal Yip says the CCP should be the only one to take the blame, for which I do feel the need to clarify -- Indeed CCP is certainly the cause of such problems, therefore a high proportion of responsibility is on the Party. But then I doubt its people can get rid of a share.

For tainted food, due to insufficient surveillance, the relevant authorities are to blame, but it is not the authorities which are in charge of producing it. A little girl was ran over by a car. No pedestrian helped. They are, if not all, ordinary people without CCP membership. There are uncountable fake goods and pirated CDs or books all over China. Some thus get extremely rich and most of them are simply commoners. Is it that fair to let Chinese people go free?

Chinese people are not as innocent as Crystal Yip assumed. On the contrary, they are smart, so smart that they gulp all the way they can by exploiting the loophole under the Communist rule -- and wait for a chance to leave the country behind. But before the day, they know staunchly to play safe. In a way, it is their gratefulness for years of advantages as a Chinese under the CCP's regime.

This situation now reminds me of a quote from V for Vendetta "How did this happen? Who's to blame? Certainly there are those who are more responsible than others. And they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."

What kind of a nation would choose such a party in the first place? And it naturally leads to the second question: with this brutal governance, what provides its people the numbness to live with it for 66 years and to endure its brutality in the foreseeable future?

"Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you" is one of the motto known by Confucius, an ancient Chinese philosopher. Abandoning one's born empathy, this nation go angry, tease or scold at Hongkongers' resistance against the tyranny which its people have been attempting to leave. 

Metaphorically, CCP is a monster raising by all people from mainland China. Fully grown, the monster does what it's nature provide and how it's taught. Retribution is it. Could these "victims" avoid the blame? Clearly not.

According to Crystal Yip, "Today, some people wish Hong Kong to be independent from China. I could not agree for a bit, because it is unbearable for one to see a lot of people suffering the suppression of the Communist Party." This is probably the lousiest excuse against Hong Kong independence movement that I've ever seen. Yip demonstrated an extreme case of empathy, forcibly rationalizing Hongkongers' suffering and "obligation" as a companion with Chinese people.

It makes one wonder if it ever occurs to Yip that the relationship between Chinese people and CCP is a form of sadomasochism. As pure outsiders, Hongkongers are not entitled to interfere. Most importantly, no Hongkongers are delighted to stay beside Chinese people and to suffer with them due to her impractical moral high ground.