23 November 2016

Yau Wai-ching: Taiwan should consider if it has sovereignty over the New Territories

Retracted letter by Yau Wai-ching to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen 
Translated by K Li, written by Yau Wai-ching 游蕙禎 (Youngspiration) [Published on Liberty Times' website on 22 Nov 2016, retracted the same day after Yau declared it was only a "draft" not intended for issue]


22 November 2016

Ms Tsai Ing-wen
President
Republic of China

Madam President,

The so-called “interpretation of the Basic Law” issued by the government of the People’s Republic of China (mainland area of the Republic of China) on 7 November 2016 has in effect “changed the law” and seriously intervened the autonomy of Hong Kong. Without the scrutiny of Hong Kong’s legislature, the Chinese Communist Party has changed local laws without consent, and has clearly contravened the agreements made in the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (“Joint Declaration”).

My political party and I have sent a letter to the UK government to inform it of the PRC government’s crude means of intervening in the judicial independence and autonomy of HK. By “changing the law”, the CCP’s action has breached the BL’s Articles 22 and 158. A158 states that the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the PRC has the power to “interpret the law” only when HK’s Court of Final Appeal seeks an interpretation from the NPCSC itself on provisions of the BL concerning affairs which are the responsibility of the PRC government or those which concern the relationship between the PRC government and HK.

However, the CCP’s “interpretation of the law” this time has clearly breached the regulation of the BL and therefore relevant provisions of the Joint Declaration, raising questions as to whether the Joint Declaration has been rendered ineffective. The Declaration was a bilateral treaty signed between the UK and the PRC, and both countries are signatories of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. So if the PRC government rejects what the UK has required it to do in HK according to the Declaration, it has breached the Declaration. The UK should raise the dispute and the validity of the Joint Declaration to the International Court of Justice in accordance with A66 of the Vienna Convention, and consider to re-establish the status of HK before the handover on June 30, 1997.

According to the Treaty of Nanking and the Convention of Peking, the Qing Empire ceased its sovereignty over HK Island and Kowloon Peninsula (south of Boundary Street) permanently to the UK; while the New Territories was only leased to the UK for 99 years by the Qing Empire. The Joint Declaration should only have the power to handle the sovereignty of HKI and Kowloon, but not the New Territories. The Joint Declaration’s decision to treat the New Territories with HKI and Kowloon is itself controversial. The PRC has destroyed the agreements made in the Joint Declaration, the only attestation it has on the sovereignty it claims to “possess” over HK. In addition, the lease of the New Territories should have ended in 1997, which means the PRC has squatted in the New Territories for 19 years. I hope Your Excellency would seriously consider the issue of sovereignty of the New Territories.

On 9 June 1898, 56 years after HKI was ceded by the Qing Empire to the UK, the UK government signed with the Qing government in Peking the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory, and was leased the territories north of Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and the surrounding 233 islands for a period of 99 years until 30 June 1997. The Republic of China government still possesses the three treaties regarding the sovereignty of HK. If the Joint Declaration is no longer effective, the ROC government should state clearly its official stance regarding the status of the New Territories under the constitutional framework of the ROC. For instance, is the sovereignty of HKI and Kowloon different from that of the New Territories under the ROC’s constitutional framework? Will Your Excellency negotiate with the UK government on the matter?

May I suggest that Your Excellency give serious consideration to the aforementioned issue, solemnly state your position and follow up on it assiduously.

Yours sincerely,

Yau Wai-ching
Legally and democratically elected representative of the voice of HKers

中華民國
蔡總統英文女士鈞鑒﹕

中華人民共和國政府(中華民國大陸地區政權)於2016年11月7日頒佈所謂的「釋法」,其客觀效果等同「改法」,嚴重干預香港自治。中共在未經香港立法機關審議的情況下,為香港本地法例擅自「修法」,這顯然已違反 《中華人民共和國政府和大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國政府關於香港問題的聯合聲明》(“中英聯合聲明”)的協議。

就中華人民共和國政府粗暴干涉香港的司法獨立和香港自治之情況,本人與敝黨已去函英國政府陳述此事。中共擅自「修法」違反香港《基本法》第二十二條及第一百五十八條。第一百五十八條提到,香港終審法院要求中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會(“人大”),就《基本法》關於中華人民共和國政府管理的事務或中華人民共和國政府和香港關係的條款進行解釋,人大始有進行「釋法」之權力。然此次中共之「釋法」已明顯違反《基本法》之規定,亦連帶抵觸《中英聯合聲明》之相關條文,致使衍生《中英聯合聲明》失效之虞。該聲明為英國和中華人民共和國所締結之雙邊條約,自應適用《維也納條約法公約》(“公約”)之規定,尚且兩國皆為《維也納條約法公約》之締約國。故若中華人民共和國政府拒絕英國所提有關前者於香港之作為,已違反《中英聯合聲明》之爭端,英國得根據第66條向國際法院提請就此爭議及《中英聯合聲明》之效力作出裁決,並考慮恢復香港主權轉移前之地位,即一九九七年六月三十日。

根據《南京條約》及《北京公約》香港島及九龍半島(界限街以南)的主權是清國永久移交至英國,至於新界則是英國向清國租借99年。理應《中英聯合聲明》只能處理港九主權問題,無權擅自決定新界主權。《中英聯合聲明》逕自將新界和香港島、九龍一併處理,己顯有爭議。加以中華人民共和國破壞《中英聯合聲明》的協議,而該聲明卻為中共「擁有」香港主權所恃之唯一依據。另外,新界租借期早於1997年結束,中華人民共和國竊據新界十九載,本人希望總統閣下能認真關注新界主權問題。

1898年6月9日,香港島從清國割讓予英國的56年,英國政府與清政府在北京簽訂《展拓香港界址專條》,租借由九龍界限街以北,至深圳河以南土地,連同附近233個島嶼,為期99年,到1997年6月30日為止。若《中英聯合聲明》不再有效,中華民國政府仍保留有關香港主權問題之三份條約,中華民國政府宜就新界於中華民國憲法框架下之地位及屬性,表明及陳述官方立場。例如,港九的主權和新界的主權在中華民國憲法框架下有否分別?而總統閣下會否就此與英國政府進行交涉?

建議總統閣下審酌上情,並表達嚴正立場,積極應為處為禱。就上述事宜,本人盼總統閣下予以跟進。專此函達,並頌政安!

經合法民主選舉產生之香港民意代表
游蕙禎 謹啟

二○一六年十一月廿二日

14 November 2016

Ernie Chow: Illusion No More - Speech on 9 Nov Rally

Speech by Chairman of CUHK Student Union Ernie Chow at the rally against NPCSC’s interpretation of the Basic Law on 9 Nov
Translated by K Li, spoken by Ernie Chow 周竪峰 on 9 November 2016

Standing on this stage, I would very much like to follow the example of veterans in the democratic camp and shout with all my might “China has no right to interfere Hong Kong’s domestic affairs”, “uphold the rule of law” and “safeguard judicial independence”, and chant thrice with everybody here “shame on the Chinese Communist Party for destroying One Country, Two Systems and our high degree of autonomy”.

For many of you who took it to the streets today, I know it's the slogans of upholding the rule of law and safeguarding judicial independence that got you here. But we students want to tell you clearly that the concepts of “rule of law” and “judicial independence” you want to guard against, and the so-called One Country, Two Systems principle or high degree of autonomy have never existed here right from the beginning.

Former deputy secretary-general of the HK Federation of Students Lester Shum said yesterday, “HK’s rule of law did not die. It has never even existed ever since the Basic Law came into force”. With the NPCSC overriding HK laws with a free rein, even the basic requirement of the principle that “no one is above the law” could not be achieved here. In other words, so long as Article 158 stays in the HK Basic Law, HK could never enjoy the rule of law.

In the past 20 years, we have been deluding ourselves. We have been deluding ourselves into thinking that the CCP would not use up all its powers. We have been deluding ourselves that HK enjoys an independent judiciary that is independent from the CCP’s rules. We have been deluding ourselves that the BL can protect all the freedoms and rights we should be entitled. We have been living in denial about the cruel facts behind this illusion. The rule of law we prided ourselves with or even One Country, Two Systems itself are at the mercy of someone else.

I want to tell you a story here. Back in the 80s, when the Basic Law was being drafted, Albert Ho from the Hong Kong Affairs Society suggested to write into the Basic Law that “residual powers” shall belong to Hong Kong, in order to achieve “a high degree of autonomy” in real terms. What are the “residual powers”? These are those powers not codified in the text of the Basic Law. If the history were to change and these residual powers were given to Hongkongers then, the CCP would no longer have the right to interfere in anything other than such specified areas as diplomacy, military and national security. This has been the dream of all Hongkongers, including everybody here, in the past twenty years when we think about our high degree of autonomy.

However, the reality is that the CCP stated explicitly at a meeting of the Basic Law Drafting Committee that the issue has no room for discussion as China is not a federation but a unitary state, and all residual powers belong to the central authorities. And so, the reality of One Country, Two Systems became a complete opposite of what we have dreamed of: even the expectation that the CCP has no rights to interfere in anything except those stated to be in their domain by the Basic Law is not true. The truth is that except those rights explicitly stated in the Basic Law, Hongkongers enjoy no other rights and the CCP has the full power to manipulate us in whatever way it wishes. We don’t even have the right to say no.

You might still have the hope that the CCP could not strip you of those rights explicitly safeguarded by provisions in the Basic Law. Sorry, I tell you with regret here that CCP could still take these rights away easily with an “interpretation”s of the Basic Law. So long as the power of interpretation is within the hands of the CCP, the Basic Law is nothing but a pile of scrap paper.

It is 2016 now, and Hongkongers have deceived themselves for nearly 20 years. We cannot continue to delude ourselves and must open our eyes wide to recognise the ugliness surrounding us, to look at this era when all conventions are challenged, to identify the CCP’s deceit over its promise of One Country, Two Systems and high degree of autonomy. No, we do not have the rule of law, we do not have a high degree of autonomy, and we do not have the protection of the Basic Law. But from today onwards, if we could realise what is behind the facet of our enemy, and stop expecting that CCP would give us democracy, and not dwell on the illusion of One Country, Two Systems, and stride along our own path, then we will have the power to rebel, to revolutionise and to overthrow the unfairness and unjust here so we can free ourselves from the grasps of the CCP. If we can figure out what our enemy is really like from today onwards, we will know how to better utilise our power in achieving self-determination, independence or even in starting our own country. We will one day be able to overthrow the Hong Kong communist regime that has long suppressed us.

If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. If you want Hong Kong to maintain its prosperity and economic stability, our officials to remain clean and follow the law in discharging their duties, our people to live well, you will have to fight! Put your illusions aside and look at the truth: what is before us is unprecedented darkness in Hong Kong. But if we resist being hypnotised by the darkness and oppose to being engulfed by despair, we will see unprecedented brightness after such darkness. May God bless Hong Kong, may we unite in saving ourselves!

Thank you very much.

19 September 2016

Marcus Lau: What Are the Hong Kong Separatists Thinking?

What Are the Hong Kong Separatists Thinking?
Written by Marcus Lau


Hong Kong - A brand new school year to many means another purchase of absurdly expensive textbooks, but school year in Hong Kong is not like ever before.

Followed by banning separatists figures like Edward Leung and Andy Chan Ho-tin from running the legislative council election, high school students advocating Hong Kong independence were prohibited from distributing flyers on campus. Chief Executive Chun-Ying Leung depicted the belief of Hong Kong independence as if it is drugs or swear words. Meanwhile, teachers face potential disqualification if they encourage discussion of the topic in the classroom. The question here is, where do these ideals of Hong Kong independence come from?

The last time Hong Kong appeared on headlines all over the world was two years ago when the Umbrella Revolution broke out. The 79-day occupation demanding democracy marked its failure when the police cleared up the occupation zones in Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay. The revolution did not leave Hong Kong people with nothing though. It enlightens youth of Hong Kong that Hong Kong would never gain genuine democracy under the sovereignty of China.

The end of the movement opens a new page for the political dynamics in Hong Kong. Young people started to organise for social resistance and elections. Varied from the path of the traditional democrats who adhere to a Chinese identity as well as China’s sovereignty on Hong Kong, the rising localists suggest that Hong Kong is an imagined community itself with its own culture and set of values and shall enjoy a self-determination right, especially when the constitution Hong Kong is adopting (i.e. Basic Law) is facing an expiry in 2047. In March this year, the Hong Kong National Party (HKNP) was founded as the first political party that advocates Hong Kong independence. Later in August, when the Hong Kong government slammed the door for certain candidates, HKNP held a rally titled “Hong Kong independence”, over 10,000 people attended.

From a recent poll we can tell 17 percent of the Hong Kong population supports Hong Kong independence, and among the age group of 15-24, the support doubled at 40 percent. To the older generation, Hong Kong and China is like mother and son. To separatists, Hong Kong and China is in a broken marriage and Hong Kong is suffering from brutal domestic violence. Like much Taiwanese and Catalonian, youth wants to separate from China. They don’t see “One country, two systems” promised by the Sino-British Joint Declaration could guarantee Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy as written in the declaration when the political power rests mostly in the hands of the Chinese government.

Despite unprecedented repression on freedom of expression, a separatist movement is developing its way led by the generation that undergone the umbrella revolution. Foreseeably, the Chinese government would use any means to suppress the movement from spreading as any separatist movements would undermine the legitimacy of the Chinese government. However, the honesty of history never fails to reveal the truth that the harder the repression, the stronger the reaction.

05 September 2016

Marcus Lau: Reflections & Analysis after Election

Reflections & Analysis after Election
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Marcus Lau Yee-ching (Former editor-in-chief, Undergrad, HKUSU) [1027, 05 Sept 2016]
Original: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1134648589937655&set=a.122206674515190.20330.100001775756809&type=3 

The outcome of the LegCo election is basically decided. [By the time of writing,] the accurate figures were not released, but looking at the seat distributions, there are some points worth looking at.

1 – The Election in HK Will Soon Become “Malaysian-style” Election
Please bear in mind that there are five candidates being screened out (Edward Leung, Chan Ho-tin, Nakade Hitsujiko, Chan Kwok-keung, Alice Lai) due to their political stances. So no matter what, this election is by no means a democratic one, but an unconstitutional election waiting to be overturned. Ridiculous things happened during the election campaign period showed that the election in Hong Kong will gradually be interfered and manipulated by the government in different ways. First, presiding officers of poll stations can take ballot boxes home, but the luggage boxes with ballot papers were not even sealed. On the election day, some voters saw others using a photocopy of HKID card to vote, some voters “were voted by others”, some votes were considered invalid as they were torn a bit; power outage was seen in a poll station in North District. During vote count period, a presiding officer delayed the vote count result (Kowloon Park station), and a station had some “extra fake votes” in the ballot boxes (Sheung Tak station, Tseung Kwan O), etc. The government has lots of ways to interfere elections. If there are LegCo elections in the future, they would be rather dim.

2 – New Social Activism Bloc is Formed
Three members from the new social activism bloc (or “Demosisto” bloc), Lau Siu-lai (Kowloon West), Eddie Chu Hoi-dick (NT West), Nathan Law (HK Island), won with higher percentages of votes. Three of them gained the most votes in the non-establishment camp in their constituencies, and this is quite surprising to everyone. “Demosisto” bloc supported self-determination and non-violent confrontation. It took a “left-leaning” stance  economically, supporting universal retirement protection and advocating social connections. However, this bloc failed to mention the crux of HK-China relationship, such as the approval right of One-way Permit and the welfare of new mainland immigrants. What do their higher percentages of votes symbolise? Since the Umbrella Movement in 2014, the rise of the new social activism bloc has shown a different image from other traditional activist parties, which emphasised on their connections with workers or the grass root. The young, fresh and reforming image of the new social activism bloc has gained lots of support from the “Umbrella Generation”. Both being first-timers in LegCo Election, “Demosisto” bloc outperformed Youngspiration, and perhaps this is what localists should reflect on. Nathan Law was more known after the Umbrella Revolution, while Eddie Chu has participated in the protest against the removal of Queen Pier back in 2006. Chu kept on revealing the collusion between “government, commercial sector, rural sector and triad gangs”, and Chu's connections and network can never be underestimated. However, Lau Siu-lai has few “groundwork” in her constituency. After “coordinating” with Oscar Lai in less than half a year ago, Lau won with over 30,000 votes, and this is worth noting [Translator's note: final votes obtained – 38,183]. 

With the entry of “Demosisto” bloc, the huge “leftist social activism industry chain” will return. With lots of resources from LegCo, the key would hinge on students' unions across different universities. Opinion leaders around this chain, such as Chow Po-chung and YC Chen, will also return, after a period of silence. For localists or independence supporters, it would be a challenge to strengthen the localist forces formed in the tertiary education sector in the past two years.

3 – More Fragmented Landscape in LegCo
With people recommended by Chinese Liaison Office entering the Council (Junius Ho, Eunice Yung, etc.), the forces of New Pro-Beijing Bloc (NT rural sector, Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong and New People's Party) will be more solid. During an interview with the press, Nathan Law said he will not participate in the pan-dem joint alliance and will be on his own. For localism camp, originally there was only one seat (Raymond Wong), but now there are 2 from Youngspiration (Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung) and 1 from Civic Passion (Cheng Chung-tai), totalling 3 seats. Although both camps had some arguments with each other, two organisations share the most similar minds among all first-timers, so it is believed that there are rooms for cooperation in the future. The pan-dem camp has not changed much, so I would not comment for now.

Fragmentation of the Council becomes the trend, and for now, I cannot foresee any figure who can unite people from establishment camp or non-establishment camp, so it is expected that there will be no major breakthrough in the Council for the coming four years. The core of Hong Kong politics will still be “from streets to Council”. With lots of blocs in the council, there will be more variables. I cannot tell whether it is a blessing or a curse as of now, but I believed that a change, no matter a better one or a worse one, must be done to change the current plight in Hong Kong.

4 – Pan-dem's “Backroom Deal” - VotSonar – Plays Vital Role

VotSonar was initially a joke due to its small amount of sample size. However, Apple Daily listed a “support/sacrifice” (S/S) list [棄保名單] from VotSonar and used its media influence to promote such list. Yet, such S/S list was only supported by around 40,000 users and these users do not even know how the list was calculated. No one really knows how the list was generated. When the list was all over Apple Daily, the list became an indicating S/S list for the entire Hong Kong. Many voters who have not vote around the evening voted according to the list. According to the S/S list for NT East, my friend's family gave three votes to separate candidates, Gary Fan, Ray Chan (Fast Beat) and Fernando Cheung. The influence of the S/S list was much stronger then the participants of VotSonar, and there are even suggestions to cast all votes for Slow Beat (Tam Tak-chi) in Kowloon East.

VotSonar has a great excuse – to send as many non-establishment candidates into the council as it can. It used precious votes to support pan-dem candidates, some of which may be at risk, eventually sacrificing localist candidates. Take Kowloon East as an example, as “78% voters do not want to vote for Wong Yeung-tat”, so the plan “does not have to consider Wong”. When this result was spread out by Apple Daily, voters only have to know they have to cast all votes to Slow Beat, but voters would not know Wong Yeung-tat was not considered by VotSonar. Same case for Raymond Wong, Baggio Leung and Horace Chin Wan-kan. This is absolutely misleading voters. Apple Daily has once and again supported pan-dem candidates by using its media influence. These pan-dem councillors are mostly on the position of sinecures. Three decades have passed, do we have more time to waste anymore?

Now, “quitting” strategy. Few days before the election day, Civic Party's Sumly Chan and Labour's Suzanne Wu quitted the election by ending their campaigns. Even if this cannot “transfer” votes, this can show that the situation of the pan-dem is on the brink. With VotSonar S/S list, swing votes will go to non-establishment camp naturally. Candidates from the pan-dem camp quitted nearly at the same time, but is that just a coincidence? The last candidate who quitted was Kwan Wing-yip from Neo Democrats, and he said the “withdrawal” was the “darkest day in his political career”. Sumly Chan said he has spent every cent of his own for the election, and has no idea to pull out. Suddenly he had a press conference with other candidates on the same day. If you link the financial sources behind these parties, you can understand why there is such “collective pull-out”.

VotSonar-Apple Daily-S/S strategy integrated together and boosted pan-dem candidates. The outcome showed that those ranked lower in election polls, such as Ray Chan (Fast Beat), Nathan Law, Ted Hui and Fernando Cheung, got more votes than polls would have expected. It showed that the plan worked out, but the devil in the detail is as dirty as pro-Beijing camp's “number in the palm”.

5 –
I guess you can figure out how localist camp can reflect. But if I put it straight, I believe you will not listen, so I will leave it blank. The only thing I'd say is, we have chosen the easiest yet the most stupid way, and those who share similar ideas were harmed.

Conclusions
There are lots of other things that worth analysing, but I will leave that to others. I would like to encourage those who felt disappointed to this election, especially localists, “Pass on the torch. Never give up the faith. Keep the light burning.” (from The Grandmaster). I cannot say this election is a victory [to localist camp – translator's note], but I can still see the slightest hope in danger. We must not be frustrated, because, we are nothing but the only Hongkongers in the world. We are still the masters of this land.

The world will eventually belong to us.

26 August 2016

[Undergrad/HKUSU] The Gap Between Two Hong Kongs: Seriously Looking at Hong Kong Independence

The Gap Between Two Hong Kongs: Seriously Looking at Hong Kong Independence
Translated by Casey Chang, written and edited by Mervyn Ho (Undergrad, HKUSU August 2016)



After the outbreak of instabilities in the beginning of the year, Hong Kong  now  faces another troubled summer.

The shocking press conference of the bookseller Lam Wing-kei busted the Chinese myth of "one country, two systems" (1C2S). The incident has stirred some uneasiness in the general public, yet it has not made the mainstream “elite politicians” recognise the fragility of the so-called "one country, two systems". Also, Lam's testimony did not receive enough attention from "pro-human right" western countries as they did not exert substantial pressure and sanctions on China regarding the Causeway Bay bookstore incident. The severity of the incident is supposed to be devastating enough to shake the confidence of "1C2S", but it only brings about nothing but merely nominal support from a few local and international pressure groups as a result of weeks of vehement protests. Following the fruitless clash with the police by some localist activists on 1st July, the political energy brought by Lam Wing-kei has gradually died down. All these events serve as a cruel reminder of the indifferent attitude of Hong Kong's public and the realist nature  of international politics.

Meanwhile, as  the LegCo election approaches, the rivalry between newly-rising localist and traditional democratic camp has reached its climax. On political arenas such as 4th June Candlelight Vigil and 1st July Protest, the two sides parted with or even rivalled against each other. With the escalation  of Chinese-Hong Kong tensions and increasing calls for Hong Kong's self-determination or even independence, it is imperative that the political landscape of Hong Kong politics will undergo drastic transformation. We have reached a historical turning point shadowed with uncertainty.Where would the post-1C2S Hong Kong go?

The abrupt end of Lam's incident indicates one thing: no matter how localists strive hard to draw support and to get media coverage, the "self-determination" and "independence" claims have never been treated seriously by the ruling business and social elites. The independence claims are considered by Chinese officials, elites and democrats as "impossible, extreme, populist, xenophobic and self-isolated protectionism, lack of economic and political possibilities" and the ideas are only political opportunism advanced by a small number of radicals, and therefore they should not deserve any attention. They simply consider  the option of independence as "unconstitutional and illegal" and bar the independence supporters from running LegCo election even the decision runs into the risk of violating their civil rights guaranteed by the Basic Law.

The localists’ fury is understandable, but one should keep in mind that elites  only calculate the merits of policies by cost-benefit analysis; the benefits generated by the favourable business environment in China, the access to greater China market, legal protection and the free economy system provided by 1C2S remained supremely important to them. Therefore, according to their cost-benefit analysis – it is imperative that the “minor sacrifices” of the dissidents' civic and political rights   are necessary after all in pursuit of the enormous profits brought by 1C2S. The screams and shouts of protests do not have even the slightest disturbance on the prosperous business activities and the clanking of champagnes that are taking  place in the skyscrapers in Central or Admiralty.

As a result, the city is split into two parts. On one hand there are financial complexes, office towers, and luxuriant shopping malls where high-educated, English and Mandarin-speaking white-collars exchange news of global stock market. On the other hand, it shows an unpleasant image of the city where features jumble of narrow alleys, overcrowded public estate and old mansions inhabited by intermixed neighbourhood of the locals and immigrants speaking various languages and dialects; hawkers running away from the police, smugglers from China chased after by disgruntled local youths. The rapid change of living environment, the sprout of jewellery shops and pharmacies changing the face of old neighbourhood, the invasive presenceof Mandarin, and the skyrocketing housing price level have deepened the anxiety of the locals.

There is an irrevocable gap dividing the city into two parts: the upper class refuses to accept any proposal of reforms and denounces any  form of protest as “radical” since they do not understand the anger and anxiety from the other side. And now who can represent and speak for them? For the past, the democrats played the role of the opposition, but now these law school graduates, “global citizens” are unable to handle such anxiety and to answer their demand for an “imagined community”. In a rather bizarre fashion, “Hong Kong nation” comes into being and becomes an important historical force.

The formation of Hong Kong nation is not only about a nostalgic feeling towards the past, but a serious political discourse and struggle which concerns issues such as immigration policy, allocation of social resources, education and legitimacy of using violence. As the popularity of the Hong Kong nationalism grows, the idea of "us and them" starts to weigh more importance than economic efficiency and universal value in political decision.  Although the essence of Hong Kong nationalism calls into question, the idea itself is widely interpreted as the resistance against the oppression of Chinese nationalism. Hong Kong society changes too rapidly after 1997:  Regardless of the reasons are the oppression of crony capitalism or influx of Chinese immigrants, the truth is that most  Hongkongers feel that the living space that they once enjoyed is increasingly being threatened. The grandiose plan of “Chinese dream” proposed by the Chinese government has failed to turn things around and win the hearts of Hongkongers back. All these factors make the image of “a weak nation against an oppressive power” attractive to many Hongkongers.

Hong Kong nationalists can better capture how the common Hongkongers feel nowadays: its carefully cultivated theories on culture and politics  have successfully separated the”Hong Kong nation” from the nation of China, and associate all social and political issues through  the perspective of “survival of Hong Kong nation”: Issues such as medical reform, the national anthem controversy on the soccer field, the medium of instruction in schools, the clash between street hawkers and policemen, every aspect of people's daily life has been turned into battlefields of fighting for the very existence of Hong Kong nation. The awareness of Hong Kong nationalism grows following each round of political mobilisations and controversies stimulated by social media, and it has profoundly challenged the discourse previously dominated by left-leaning liberals and conservative political economists on socio-political issues.

The mainstream is unable to respond to localist's demand for independence or self-determination with proper ideas  and simply downplays them as "fascists" or "populists”. Both sides lack common vocabularies to discuss their ideas, and the cracks are further widened by  stratosphere effects caused by the use of social media.The divide will only be worse in future.

If Britain had never colonised Hong Kong, or Communist China had never claimed Hong Kong back, or the promise given by 1C2S had been duly fulfilled, then the idea of Hong Kong independence would never become popular. It is ironic that the idea of Hong Kong nation shares the same loophole of Chinese nationalism, both being politically constructed ideas that are manufactured conveniently to serve real-life political needs. However,  precisely because Hong Kong nationalists understand that “nations” are products of real-life political conflicts rather than vice versa, it legitimatizes the birth of the Hong Kong nation against the arbitrary official discourse of Chinese nationalism, which claims that national identity is inherent and unchangeable. It is a truly remarkable historic event that in nowadays world, which national borders are thought to be  stable and colonialism is thought to be part of history, there can be a genuinely new nation given birth in a global metropolis in the peripheral area of China.

The rise of Hong Kong nationalism is an extraordinary by-product under the unique circumstances of Hong Kong history. However, keen observers may find the local separatist movement as part of the historical momentum of populism and the counter-nationalism in the post-modern world. The shocking result of Brexit, or the rise of Donald Trump (and Bernie Sanders) are often seen as the resistance by the upset mass against thglobalisationon, neoliberalism and politic elitism. The step down of Cameron also reveals the disconnection between the British government and European Parliament and the labour class, especially those from the old industrial area.

In the aftermath of Brexit, the mainstream media blamed the Brexit supporters as poorly-educated populists who selfishly destroyed the future of British youths. The arguments ignore the other side of the shinning appearance of the EU: the decline of low value-added industries due to the opening of market, wealth gap brought by neo-liberal policy of tighter fiscal control, slump of workers’ salary, shortage of jobs because of competitions of immigrants, cultural shocks, the influx of refugee, the fears of security. The success of Brexit is not a ridiculous joke but a dire warning to the ruling class in this world.

Many have warned about the EU governance model, but the ruling class remains indifferent and does not treat this rise of right-wing populist seriously. The EU demands British to act according to the result of the referendum, and it plans to punish Britons severely in order to deter anyone who wanted to follow suit. London wanted to postpone the triggering of Article 50. Meanwhile, an international law firm attempts to void the result of referendum through judicial appeal. Also, mainstream media view the majority Brexit supporters with contempt. British leaders are trying hard to block the result decided by the means of direct democracy, which showed the hypocrisy of western parliamentary democracy.

Comparing Hong Kong to these western countries with long democratic tradition, the Hong Kong independence movement has more headwinds include the influence of China's authoritarian regime, the rise of Chinese nationalism and despotic HKSARG, but Hong Kong localists and western right wing nationalists share many similarities: they are both facing dominance from a super-nation organisation or a superpower, economic competition from immigrants, heavier burden of social resources allocation, clash of culturesand degeneration of local lifestyle and habits due to intrusion of cosmopolitanism, and the widening gap between the poor and the elites. Traditional left-right party politics remained solid throughout the world, but cracks and crisis are everywhere. The problem has been aggravated after HKSARG has disqualified a Hong Kong nationalist candidate from running LegCo election. According to the recent survey by CUHK, support for localism remains a minority part of the city’s population. The fact that most of them are young people shows obvious generation differences. However, the voice of discontent would not simply vanish after  they are “muted” in the establishment; they would go back to the streets, to every household, and the uncompromising conflict between these “two Hong Kongs” will persist every day.

The significance of Brexit is that western democracy cannot solve the deep-seated social conflict caused by theglobalised world,  but will aggravate social divisions prolonged conflicts due to the exercise of direct democracy. To Hong Kong nationalists, the ultimate solution of the plight of Hong Kong is not “true democracy” but full independence, border control, reinvigoration of local culture, and strengthening of social bonds and identitys within the same political community However, the leaderless situation of Brexit camp shows that drawing support within the country is not hard, but negotiation with a far more formidable opponent will be a much more challenging  struggle. Weak nations are  ignored in the arena of international politics The nationalists have little bargaining power to gain  substantial international support at the moment: Hong Kong as a financial and logistic hub provides some favourable termsin theory , but they are more possibly the major obstacles for advocates of Hong Kong independence.

No matter it is establishment camp’s agendas such as "Belt and Road initiative" or 'China's dream", pan-dems' "the battle against 689" or localists' "general “self-determination” or "Hong Kong independence", all of them have mistaken Hong Kong as an unified entity without internal conflicts. They thought of bankers, lawyers, labourers, and rag-pickers within a single community as people sharing  common interest and goals e. They often assume that once the common goal is achieved, every Hong Konger will live happily ever after. Such common mistakes are made by both supporters of Hong Kong nationalists and liberals who failed to consider the social class divisions. Diversification and complication exist not only within the “imagined communities” but also among the “ethnic compatriots”. Asking the labour class to accept immigrants competing for jobs is as absurd as requesting business leaders to support the cause of Hong Kong independence. The ideological differences and social division between two sides has generated more strife and conflicts.

The solution, other than the traditional economist’s cost-benefit analysis of “achieve the general good”, must include the leftist's idea of wealth redistribution and nationalist's concern of constructing a shared identity. But if one takes a closer look, he or she may find the contradiction between the basic assumptions behind each of these theories and at the end of the day. It is hard to blame localist youth in taking the “valorous” path of violence after all.

As the society is deeply bipolarised (or tripolarised?), problems are increasingly difficult to  be solved with dialogues or debates. Instead, each side mobilizes its own supporters on the “stratosphere” of social networks and engages in verbal or even physical conflicts. What more likely happens in future is not the glory of independence but the disintegration of the society. Only the unpredictable force of history can tell who can be the final winner. Is the trend a boon or a bane for Hong Kong? Who knows?

20 August 2016

[Undergrad/HKUSU] Stephen Ku: The Empire on its Way to Death

The Empire on Its Way to Death
Translated by Cesar Guarde-Paz, written by Stephen Ku (Undergrad, HKUSU August 2016)
(Photo: Pixabay)
In 1841, shortly after British troops landed Hong Kong, Charles Elliot, Chief Superintendent of British Trade immediately announced that Hong Kong was a free port. Hong Kong’s economy achieved thereafter a rapid growth through entrepôt trade, leading to the subsequent development of other areas, such as the cultural industry. In the 1970s, when the Cultural Revolution broke out in China and right in the middle of a serious setback both to its economy and to its people’s livelihood, Hong Kong’s trade industries were in the apex of its development, gradually rising upon the world’s stage as an international financial centre. Even if there were usual economic exchanges between Hong Kong and China, such as the outflow of capital from Hong Kong’s industries to China in the 1980s and 1990s, the economic systems of Hong Kong and China have always kept an adequate distance between themselves. However, since the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997 the SAR Government has acted as the colonial agents of the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong and has begun to eradicate any difference between Hong Kong and China, for instance, by promoting the “Hong Kong-China economic integration”, slowly making Hong Kong’s economic structure more and more dependent on China’s situation, sowing the seeds for the common notion of “Without Chinese economy there would be no Hong Kong”. In 2003, after the SARS outbreak, Hong Kong and China signed the “Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement” (CEPA), reducing barriers for trading between Hong Kong and China and lifting restrictions for individual visits from China to Hong Kong (Individual Visit Scheme) [translator's note: before China had travel restrictions for its people regarding visiting Hong Kong and Macau]. Since then, the focus of Hong Kong’s economy in trade, tourism, etc. has gradually moved towards China, with Hong Kong suffering a growing influence of the so-called red capitalism.

In an article published in February 2016 under the title “A materialist interpretation of the Chinese Communist Party violation of the promises of ‘One country, two systems; high degree of autonomy’”, political commentator Joseph Lian described how Hong Kong has received the obnoxious influence of red capitalism: “Red capitalism is really fond of Hong Kong. Over the last decade, it has had a significant presence, accounting for 40% to 60% of the total market capitalization of the recent Hong Kong’s stock market. Among the companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, there are usually more than fifteen of the top twenty shares, ranked by market capitalization, which can be labelled as “red capitalism”. Lian points out that red capitalism has already become the “economic foundation” of Hong Kong and is gradually undermining Hong Kong’s culture, politics, institutions, etc.: “The reason everybody is contemplating the distortion and eroding of the ‘One country, two systems; high degree of autonomy’ policy lies not only behind the fact that the ideology of the authorities is different from ours but, more importantly, behind the revelation and implementation of the will behind this red capitalism”. The leak of the Panama Papers shocked the world. An investigation report led by “Ming Pao” revealed that many scions of the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership who possess a Hong Kong Permanent Resident Status control offshore companies. Hong Kong has been reduced to a very convenient place for this crony elite to launder money. Whether it is the influence of red capitalism on Hong Kong, or Hong Kong’s value for this type of capitalism, the question should not be ignored.

The colonial proxies in Hong Kong who continuously endorse the crony elite of the Chinese Communist Party have transformed Hong Kong into the stepping-stone of China’s economic development. In a policy address delivered by CY Leung in 2016, the Chief Executive points out many times how Hong Kong’s economy should continue to move closer to China: “This year marks the start of the National 13th Five-Year Plan and the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the launch of various innovation and technology initiatives.  It will be a year of significant opportunities for Hong Kong’s future.  Taking forward plans in hand, all HKSAR Government departments will be heavily engaged in their work”. Because of this, Leung proposed in his policy address to “enhance co-operation and exchanges between the Mainland and Hong Kong/Macao in the areas of social policies, livelihood issues, technology, culture, education, environmental protection, etc., as well as deepen regional cooperation in the Pan-Pearl River Delta Region.”. Xi Jinping’s proposed strategy, the so-called “Belt and Road initiative”, was mentioned by Leung in his policy address no fewer than 44 times, becoming the “top priority” of his policy address. It is so obvious that how CY Leung brown-nosed China, and help China to make plans for Hong Kong.

Due to the regime’s much trumpeted lemma “Chinese economy improves”, and set against the background of the “Hong Kong-China economic partnership sharing weal and woe”, the discourse of “Hong Kong Independence” is over and over under attack: those against Hong Kong independence, besides the paradoxical argument of “Hong Kong has been a part of China since ancient times”, they will also hardly forget to say “Hong Kong’s economy has always been dependent on China”, “if ‘grandpa’ is not happy, China will impose economic sanctions on Hong Kong”. An editorial published by Wen Wei Po on April 27 criticized Hong Kong independence for bringing terrible economic consequences for Hongkongers: “Founded on the Rule of Law and good government and thanks to the regional advantages due to the motherland’s support and the preferential policies from the central government, Hong Kong has become an international financial, trading, and logistics center. The consequences of ‘Hong Kong independence’ flood will be the disintegration of that position and those advantages. Do Hongkongers want to become the victims of ‘Hong Kong independence’?”. What is noteworthy about this is that those who uphold the aforementioned arguments include, besides the Party mouthpieces endorsing the regime, many pan-democrat activists. The Democratic Legislative Councillor Emily Lau pointed out on a forum in January 2015 that Hong Kong’s food and water resources are dependent on Chinese imports, and a lot of people work either in China or in a company managed by Chinese. Therefore, Hong Kong lacks the prerequisite for independence. 

In a survey conducted this year by HKUSU Undergrad, entitled “Politics and protest”, one of the questions asked was, if Hong Kong should uphold a referendum to decide whether “Hong Kong should become an independent country”. 61% of the students voted in favour of the referendum in case Beijing did not approve it, but with Beijing’s approval, the result was then 65%. This slight difference more or less reflects the attitude of some Hongkongers: they support Hong Kong independence in their hearts, but because they are afraid that an “unhappy” China will take vengeance with economic and border sanctions, they do not dare to stand out. Therefore, on the emergence of Hong Kong independence wave emergence and strengthening, the society is prevalent with bearish sentiments in this wave: some people believe that China is an undefeatable economic and political giant –“If you offend the Chinese Communist Party it won’t end well”, “this tiny piece of land called Hong Kong has to be under their command for good, we cannot oppose it”. But as the story of David and Goliath tells us, even giants can be defeated, and that “empire” called China is by no means invincible.

Why Nations Fail 
American scholars Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson point out in their book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that political institutions are a prerequisite for economic development, and that it is only under inclusive institutions (those with fair market rules and protection of private property rights) that nations can achieve sustainable development. In contrast, extractive institutions (those with a small political elite dominating the country) will lead to the collapse of the country, caught within the vicious circle of extractive political and economic policies whose development cannot be sustained. And after its establishment by the Chinese Communist Party, China’s “political and economic institutions […] were highly extractive” (p. 420). 

In 1978, the Chinese Communist Party decided to focus on economic modernization rather than class struggle, with Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang and others trying to implement inclusive economic institutions. The consequences of opening-up policies reform were that: the rural economy took off and state-owned companies bloomed. However, despite the rapid economic development, the economy was merely developing under an extractive institutional system: in 2003 entrepreneur Dai Guofang’s company competing against a state-owned enterprise led to his detention. Dai is just a victim of the exclusive institutional system, a proof that fair competition is almost impossible to exercise in China. The current governance of the People’s Republic of China is no different from the Soviet Union during the decades of 1960s and 1970s. China “is similarly unlikely to generate sustained growth unless it undergoes a fundamental political transformation toward inclusive political institutions” (p. 151). This is the case for any country in the world, without exception. But the fact remains that the Chinese Communist Party will only maintain a one-party dictatorship and will never allow the existence of any other political party. The authors quote the words of Premier Wen Jiabao: “If there is no guarantee of reform of the political system, then results obtained from the reform of the economic system may be lost”. In an authoritarian regime, even if there is a short period of economic growth, the lack of inclusive institutions and the destruction of creativity will, after all, hinder a long-term development and bring it all to an inescapable end.

In an article published in 2015 by The Wall Street Journal under the title “The Coming Chinese Crackup”, leading China expert David Shambaugh holds similar views with Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. The article points out five indications of the upcoming downfall of the Chinese Communist regime:

First, the economic elites have one foot out the door and they are ready to flee China en masse;
second, Xi Jinping’s regime has intensified its pervasive repression of freedom of press;
third, many regime loyalists are feigning compliance with the empty talk reforms;
fourth, the extend of the corruption problem;
and fifth, the big, hidden troubles that plague China’s economy.

Shambaugh states that the Chinese Communist Party clearly aware of the fact that China’s political system is like the emperor wearing no clothes, and Xi’s tyrannical governance has further pushed China’s system pressure to the brink of a breakdown: “The endgame of Chinese communist rule has now begun, I believe, and it has progressed further than many thinks”. And all the aforementioned problems can only be solved through political reform.

Although in 2016 Shambaugh said that he was not a “collapsist”, but wished China will have a different path, however, this does not affect to his main point, that “without reform, China has no future”. It is clear that today the Chinese Communist Party will not implement fundamental political reforms to resolve its actual crisis. In 2013, Xi Jinping issued the following “Great speech”: “if our party can’t even handle food-safety issues properly, and keeps on mishandling them, then people will ask whether we are fit to keep ruling China”. In 2014 the fourth plenary conference of the eighth session of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party emphasised the “Rule of Law”, “to insist on the dominant role of the people”, “to insist on equality before the law”, etc. And then the Chinese Communist Party promptly overthrew itself: in March 2016 when China suffered the vaccine scandal, each social networking platform in China called for the removal of any “unfavourable” information, including the previous passage from Xi Jinping’s “Great Speech”, which was widely quoted by netizens. A man who asked Xi Jinping to resign was arrested. When on June, the land rights movement in Wukan village erupted again, the activist leader Lin Zulian was taken away by force by the police, who were waiting in the village, fully equipped. Ironically, when the villagers marched they waved the national flag, as they loudly cried out: “Long life to the Chinese Communist Party! Down with corrupt officials! Give us back our land!”. But no one should feel pity for them: a group of fools whose land had been taken away yet are so lucky to have the Party as their consolation, advocating unrealistic feudal ideas such as “I am only against corrupt officials, not against the emperor”. The Chinese Communist Party is a hopeless, hypocrite regime which expects to improve itself by saying things like “according to the Rule of Law” and “Down with corruption” – there is no doubt that these are just the late-night ravings of a lunatic. The Economist has evaluated Xi in the following terms: it seems that Xi Jinping doesn’t have time to make the Chinese Communist Party abide “according to the Rule of Law”, to implement bold social reforms, or to end state-owned enterprise that bankrupted many years ago. Yet, he can use any means necessary to consolidate his own power. Thus, The Economist has called him the “Chairman of Everything” (COE). To expect decentralisation and implementation of inclusive institutions from the Chinese Communist Party is like climbing a tree to catch a fish.

It is the nature of the Chinese communist regime to get rid of the person who points out the problem, rather than getting rid of the problem itself. In fact, the nature of the Chinese communist governance is exactly the same as described in Why Nations Fail. When governance, economic and any other type of crisis accumulate over and over, those in power will turn a blind eye and bury their heads in the sand. Finally, we should point to Why Nations Fail’s prophecy: its economic growth being unsustainable, China will fail. Or as The Washington Post editor Jackson Diehl puts it in his article “The Coming Collapse: Authoritarians in China and Russia Face an Endgame”: 
“Revolutions are, of course, unpredictable. Some regimes fall sooner than seemed possible until the event occurs; some linger long after their demise has become inevitable. But the recent history of unfree countries has shown that while breaking points are hard to anticipate, there is a common set of conditions that sets the stage for change”.
When in 2015 China faced a rare case of national stock market crisis, the signs of China’s economic storm roared like a thunder. On February 2016, Joseph Lian pointed out that the Chinese economic miracle already started to decline in 2008 and, would it not stop, in three years their economy would experience negative growth. “If Beijing’s attempts to counter-attack by force result in conflict, its crisis-ridden economy is likely to collapse: and if it doesn't use force to counter attack, the myth of nationalism will also be shattered into pieces”.

As China buries itself, those enjoying the comfort zone should be alert 
As for today, there are still a lot of Hongkongers who believe that Hong Kong’s economy can only rely on China, that “If Hong Kong is fine, China will be fine; if China is fine, Hong Kong will be even better”. This is especially true for the financial sector. Little do they know that behind China’s apparent national prosperity, a nation is dying inside. It is a matter of time before the wind blows out the candle.

At present China still relies on its sovereignty over Hong Kong and continuously makes use of the world’s freest economy. Nevertheless, the consequences of the invasion of red capitalism will not only be a Chinese model of business or the erosion of the values treasured by Hongkongers, but also the ripple effect of the explosion caused by China’s political and economic crisis. Before doomsday arrives for China and continually spreads over the present situation of Hongkongers, even if Hong Kong’s nationalism does not have a common front, it will eventually awake: to save ourselves, we should first cut any ties with China.

Leave China for self-determination. Save Hong Kong. 

15 August 2016

Atsuna: De-politicization and Injustice

Atsuna: De-politicization and Injustice
Translated by Karen L., written by Atsuna (written in February 2013)
Original: https://atsunablog.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/%E5%8E%BB%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E5%8C%96%E8%88%87%E5%8E%BB%E6%AD%A3%E7%BE%A9%E5%8C%96/ 


(A primary 2 student was asked if she knows what "vote" means in a documentary)

One may have noticed the recent presence of “the Sounds of Silence” in Hong Kong community. They insist that “politicisation” is not a positive attribute of any place. In their point of view, politicians are to be divisive and the post-90s citizens are too inexperienced to handle things right. To them, conflicts, regardless of any nature, will only sew discord within the city. Frowned at each sight of aggressive protestors, they seriously believe that the one and only survival way-out left for Hong Kong is “de-politicization”.

These people are not entirely formed by groups of paid Internet ghostwriters employed by the establishment camp. Many of them are made blind as a result of comfortable lives. Without realising that politics is accounted for one after another leap forward for the city, the naïveté in them allows the spread of an unascertainable belief of which Hongkongers’ political apathy contributes to the undivided attention on economics and the subsequent prosperity.

In 1949, a good number of funds and talents entered, and thus favoured Hong Kong due to the fall of China. The cold war after that drew the iron curtain that separated China from the western world, while Hong Kong connecting to both sides managed to create an economic legend with entrepôt dominance. As to the welfare system in Hong Kong, basically, it is established to prevent another wave of Hong Kong 1967 Leftist riots and to placate the widespread anger among the population. Before the deadline of 1997’s Handover, the game plan for the British Hong Kong Government was to add more bargaining chips in the political negotiations with the Chinese Communist Party.1 Suddenly, repudiated the autocracy they used to practice, the government suggested to put parliamentary democracy into execution. Had it not been stymied by the Chinese Communist Party, we would have known at first hand the benefits brought by “politicisation”: ordinary men can vote to protect themselves from dignitaries’ corruption.

Over a long period of time, the governments in charge have hypnotised Hongkongers into believing that their meaning of life is supposed to devote as politically apathetic economic animal. Subconsciously, this misleading move has rationalised the fully negative image of politics. The word “Politicisation”, similar to the slang “Kong gals”, is thought to carry only derogatory connotations. Skipping further exploration to that common idea, many gullible people fall for such casuistry. Condemning CY Leung for his unauthorized building works, to them, is “politicisation”; uploading pictures of mainland Chinese’s wrongdoings in Hong Kong society and criticizing those behaviours, to them, are applications of “politicization”; realizing the so-called integration between Hong Kong and Mainland China to be an annexation, to them, is again “politicization”... By taking a deeper thought to that, one will notice that the people with the notion to “de-politicize” turn out to take an unfathomable liking to “politicisation”. To achieve whatever purpose, an unfailing  explanation to the man-made flux of mislabeling on every opposition is the advantage attached to the surefire moral-high-ground position — one does not have to bother one’s head about making persuasive counter-arguments.

Being well aware of the above advantages, mainland China is probably the most successful representative to deploy omnipresent “de-politicization" — zero freedom to talk about politics within the country. What is more, in this world of “de-politicization", any action carrying the faintest trait of politicisation is to be oppressed by the authority. People requesting the government to implement the constitution is regarded an incitement to subvert state power; people demanding that those infant formula companies make reasonable compensation, it is public nuisance; people making petitions in an attempt to overthrow forced eviction end up in labour camps... The specifically designed search engines adoptable in the country even filter out “Communist Party” because it is too sensitive a word for its people. Such extreme is destined for an opposite extreme. Thanks to that, there’s a whole new world of politicisation born where political trickeries are so common even to kids who are far from reaching mental maturity.

(A primary 2 student said she had no idea what is democracy in a documentary)

A documentary called Please Vote for Me2 talks about an election of class monitor among some primary 2 students in Wuhan, China. It begins with a boy saying his grounds to stand for election. He says, “A class monitor represents power. The class has to stand and sit under the command of the class monitor.” At this young age, this boy has come into contact with “pork barrel” promising his classmates seats in the class association for a vote. Plus, he instigates others to “mobilise the masses” and to sabotage the talent show on the spot so other candidates wouldn’t gain advantages. There are no lengths to which this child will not go to gain power and influence. Adept politicking and aberrant enthusiasm in power, unquestionably, are nothing common to children in ordinary countries.

At the beginning of the documentary, another competitor refuses his police-officer parents’ offer to “help him do something” for more votes. To us, it seems to be an odd enough offer. And this boy does appear to have a backbone like ramrod at that time and he says, “I don’t want to control them. Let them think. They can vote for whoever they want.” But then, he suffers from a competitor’s politicking and decides to take his parents’ suggestion. Free “guanxi” trip on the railway for the whole class and distributing pre-mid-Autumn-festival presents in front of everyone before the vote bribe his way to a win.

In the end of it, interestingly, the teacher concludes with this: Be it victory or loss, every one of you has learned a "precious" lesson...  The teacher also mentions that this lesson is going to play a huge role in their growth path. The camera captured a fairly dramatic final scene: the losing candidates are required to shake hands with the winning candidate and to say a few words of blessing to him; the class is filled with claps; on the wall of that very classroom, there hangs a Chinese banner that reads "embrace integrity and bravery; be diligent and a constant thinker". I assume that those kids truly benefited a great deal. After all, now that the kids know mere politicking is far from being effective, the prudential policy to cope with villains is to be one of them — suppressing the masses — and to confuse people by giving them advantages at certain times. An unpleasant surprise is that to them, the foul measures to meet purposes can still be divided into "better" and "worse".

An almost universally accepted opinion of politics is that it is a disgust, which politicians brazenly enjoy vested interests through demagogueries. Precisely because of it, the need to eliminate the possibility of black-box operations shall not be ignored. Those sayings which advocate creating "a better world" by "de-politicization" are ridiculous lies indeed.

Yim Man-wa, an activist, was charged with an assault on a police officer (Translator’s note: On 2012’s Hong Kong 1 July demonstration, the protestors had waited for hours before they can start. Some participants demanded the police to retract the blockages at Causeway Road so as to make way for protestors. Yim hunkered and crossed the cordon line. Some police officers were there carrying her away and she bet one of them.) and had to serve her sentence in a rehabilitation centre.

Originally it was a perfectly normal school event to visit these centres as it serves as an alert so that the students are aware of the consequences if they go astray. But I wonder that if defending for a good cause continued to be looked down, these centres would eventually deteriorate into some coward factories from where the visitors would get the idea to not come forward against injustice.

The authority’s repression of dissent in modern Hong Kong has aggravated without scruple, and yet commoners should carry on the mission impossible to avoid being too “politicised”? Isn’t it an obvious means to force people to return to the “motherland”?

In the name of “de-politicization” again and again, the authority lowers the value of justice. A society where early education is about to follow the opposite direction of justice and to learn by heart all those dark unspoken rules is never a society with justice. Just as communism to mainland China, justice may seem to be theoretically acceptable, but underneath, if you talk about the true application of it, the people there will laugh their hands off. So, back to “de-politicisation”, what is it? The most powerful trick of the authority.



1. Chris Patten, a former governor of Hong Kong, suggested the 1994 Hong Kong electoral reform in an attempt to make it a more direct-election-like form. The plan is that 9 functional constituencies would be added to the Legislative Council and the employees in those industries would be entitled to vote. Beijing banned the suggestion and the primary unit of the current functional constituencies is a company. In other words, only a few employers have the right to vote in this aspect.

2. The Full movie of Please Vote for me with English subtitles is available in Youtube:
     1/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pZsCg-1fQ8
     2/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVqZz4CIDys
     3/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ku6SVaRKx4
     4/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTSM71a6_M8
     5/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJNbTXYpE0

09 August 2016

[Undergrad/HKUSU] Meet the Poet Who Breaks through the Crevasse: Nicholas Wong

Meet the Poet Who Breaks through the Crevasse: Nicholas Wong
Written by Rainbow Wong (Undergrad, HKUSU, August 2016)
Nicholas Wong (photo by Donald Yiu)


Born and raised in Hong Kong, “Asia’s World City” dubbed by the local tourism board, the Lambda Literary Award winner, Nicholas Wong Yu-bon, feels that there are certain “off-ness” in his identities. He writes poems in English, his second language, and is gay in a city that does not even have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Nevertheless, this is no obstacle to his creativity—if anything, it has opened up a world of myriad possibilities for him.

The purple book cover of Crevasse features a hole full of cross-shaped bacteria revealed by a paper crack. Inspired by a poem about gloryholes and crucifixions, he designed it with an artist from Los Angeles, as he told Time Out Hong Kong earlier. “The title Crevasse suggests a crack that opens up an originally intact surface to reveal what possibly exists beneath it,” Wong explained the name of his latest poetry collection, which earned him the US-based awards, also known as the “Lammys”, in the gay poetry category. Now in their 28th year, the awards recognize and celebrate L.G.B.T. books from a variety of genres published in the U.S. each year.  The award ceremony this year was held in early June at New York University. 

The hidden gem of English poetry

In brutal honesty, the local poetry scene has not been remarkably exuberant and it seemingly applies even more so for poetry written in the English language, which might be more challenging to read for many locals. But English poetry greatly enchants Wong: He likes the reading and writing of the genre, and is drawn to “the in-between-ness, the ambiguity, the clarity that is always defined by opacity”, as he said. As an English major at HKU, he grew used to writing many texts for each course and enjoyed doing it. But his interest in writing poetry really sparked off in his third year, when he was enrolled in a whole-year creative writing course taught by Shirley Lim, which explored the craft of poetry and short stories. It was not without difficulty, though. As he said, “The challenges, back then, were the literary vacuum, by which I meant I hadn't had the chance to read a lot of poetry—classical and contemporary. I believe that reading the right poems is the key to writing drafts that are worth keeping.  This said, the course let me know I was, to say the least, interested in creative writing, or creating per se.”

He then went on to complete a master’s degree in comparative literature at HKU. His fondest memories are the simplest ones. “I liked simply sitting in a classroom and listening to professor talk about interesting ideas that ultimately changed one's perspective in seeing things. They're sharing their lifetime wisdom and research with you in two hours. It's actually a good deal, from the economic point of view,” he said.

Against all odds

Wong also took the City University’s MFA in Creative Writing in 2010, an Asian-themed, low-residency program of which many local English writers were alumni. Unfortunately, the program was axed in the Summer of 2015 amid protests from current students, graduates and authors worldwide. Wong was among those who signed the letter against the university's decision. "That MFA program was different from any of the regular ones that run courses by semester. Therefore, it had to be funded by a different financial model. However, the management wasn't very flexible in creating a new funding model to keep the program. Their reluctance could be a shortsightedness, or a complicated administrative decision. It's ironic to close the program when the university advocated a truly global body of studentship. I have never been in a program more global than MFA," he said.

“Literature grows in Hong Kong. There are more and more quality readers and daring writers, both for the Chinese and English literary scenes. But it's almost true to say literature is marginalized because the people making important policies are not very good readers or writers themselves.” But despite all the challenges, “The more marginalized an artist, the more creative energy he has,”as Wong quoted singer-songwriter Anthony Wong Yiu-ming.

Poring over his poems, many may sense a dash of social sensitivity between the lines. Writers should make use of their discomfort as inspiration, Wong believes. "To me, politics is related to one's existence and positioning in a community," he said. "I do believe that good writings should transgress and subvert."

'Just another relationship'

Avid film watchers would be familiar with the delicate yet turbulent romance of two young souls in Wong Kar-wai's Happy Together (1997). It is something quite different from other local films of its time because of the straightforward depiction of a gay romance. Wong likes the film a lot, as he explained, “It doesn't bother explaining the homosexuality of the two protagonists. It's just another relationship. We need more films and TV dramas like this to counter the misrepresentation of queerness in Hong Kong or Asian popular culture.”

In his other interviews, he has been emphasizing that "gay poetry" is there only for the ease of categorization by the press, bookstores and the like. After all, labelling is perhaps dispensable, if the focus is on a poet's work and not his identity.

There are quite a few queer poets whom Wong admires, from across the world, including Cyril Wong (Singapore), Jee Leong-koh (Singapore), C. Dale Young (America), Timothy Liu (America), Danez Smith (America), Ocean Vuong (America), D. A. Powell (America) and Kazim Ali (America).

The collection

When asked about Crevasse, Wong said, “There are poems that are deeply personal, whereas there are some pieces that depart from the personal and try to explore the personal with the social. The worst assumption of reading poetry or any literature is that everything on the page is autobiographical.  This reading is very reductive. In fact, can we ever tell if incidents in the poem have happened? Why bother? Poetry should start with what is known and push itself towards exploring the unknown."

Although Wong does not have a favorite poem in the collection and interestingly, avoids reading the entire collection, there is a poem which holds a special place in his heart. “There is a poem called ‘Side Effects of Leukaemia’, and it's written for a dear friend who passed. He's been supportive of my dream,” he said.

We have hand-picked two poems from Crevasse with which many might resonate according to life in Hong Kong. "Postcolonial Zoology" explores the intricacies of race and colonization, while "Neighbor" looks into the intersections between one's private and public life.

Postcolonial Zoology
1997, Hong Kong

It is not the pedigreed corgis they left
at the handover, but the effigy of the Queen
on toothed stamps being self-important

in dusted albums. We bolted to banks to trade
for new coins. We went to the West, away
from communist coxswains, but were whittled

to sculptures called “second-tier citizens,”
second to terriers. Our being could start
a chapter in zoology: we are inedible

bilingual centaurs spreading swine flu
at the turn of the century, we are comrades
of a blue whale found ashore due to sonic

confusion, caribous on a cruise to Malibu.
Even what we remembered migrated to corners
invisible in brain scans. In Mandarin Oriental,

India, a TV host devoured British scones
and circumscribed cucumber sandwiches
on his sun porch that looked over to rice fields.

A butler next to him. He called the experience
authentic. So were the bees buzzing in air,
sick of their queen too lazy to move.

Words from the poet:
"I once watched a travel show on Discovery Channel late at night, and was bothered by how the white male host enjoyed being served by colored resort staff. Well, from an economic point of view, there seemed to be nothing wrong there. He paid for the service. He got it. Yet, the semiotics of the scenes is deeply troubling."

Neighbor

Every death is a local event every local

avoids. The way we zigzag our way
by the gate to avoid this spot the skull

has crushed then opened like a generous

guava.  e way we think the chalked
outline of the victim, a man, hardly

synopsizes the outlined body we carry

thus know of. The way a tent is zipped
to eclipse his plunge from public talks

because he has taken another he too personally,

privately—the myth of love bisects these he’s,
who wet their love for myths with well-meant selves.

Tomorrow, the street will reek of bleach,

will gray as if intolerant of red, and stories
of the spot be untold by bold tire tracks.

A wreath by the curb

tilts, an umbrella, unclaimed, waits
for better weather to disclose its ribs.

Words from the poet:
"People jumped from buildings to kill themselves in Hong Kong. There's a certain haunting quality in walking on the road, where the night before, someone's head might have been crushed like 'an open guava'. I don't mean haunting in the spectral sense, but how tragedies and deaths can be quickly 'sanitized' for a regular, normal life to resume its pace."

[5 Aug 2016 Rally] Jason Chow: "One Day, We Can Return Here & Make Our HK's Tennis Court Oath"

Jason Chow's Speech on Hong Kong National Party - “Defend for Democracy, Hong Kong Independence” Rally
Transcribed by William, translated by William and Sidney, spoken by Jason Chow Ho-fai
[ The English translation is released under Creative Commons, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ]
(Source: Undergrad, HKUSU Instant News)
Hello everyone, I am the spokesperson of the Hong Kong National Party. Well, on the rally last Friday, I mistakenly said that I was the convener - actually, I am the spokesperson, alright. My name is Chow Ho-fai, so today we have such a large and peaceful gathering; many were displeased with peaceful gatherings, or perhaps doubtful, and that is because the Pan-Democratic camp has for the last nineteen years, squandered each and every chance when we had one. Peaceful assemblies were supposed to be a way to gather the crowd, such that we can wait for an opening to put up a fight on the streets or to launch an operation against the government. Yet the Pan-Democrats dismissed the crowd and send everyone home at the boiling point, time after time. Many a great opportunity never have the chance to become something.

Before I say what I am supposed to say today, let me talk about our publicity materials. I trust that everybody here must have received leaflets on the footbridge over there, when you came here from the Admiralty Centre. On one side, it just says “Independence!” followed by an exclamation mark. So what is it all about? If you are holding one, you can take a look right now. Actually, it lists the doubts that many Hong Kong people, many normal citizens have: how would it be possible for Hong Kong to become independent, or specifically, why does Hong Kong have what it takes to become an independent sovereign state. They always say, “if we declare independence, then you won’t have a water supply, and you losers would starve”. That is not true actually, Hong Kong does not rely on China much in terms of food supply. In fact, China is the biggest food importer in the world. As for freshwater, Singapore utilizes desalination and Hong Kong can follow their example.

Many said that they are going to let loose the PLA, but then they did not do that on the 28th of September, they just called the police. Why did they not do that is important - Hong Kong is a place that holds a lot of capital and property for Xi Jinping, his families and many more CCP higher-ups, as they shift their assets out of China. As such, suggesting that the PLA would march out and purge Hong Kong is preposterous and I do not believe that it could happen.

That PLA barracks over there, don’t have the wrong idea that it houses a whole bunch of tough, seasoned warriors. The ones are garrisoned in Hong Kong, are the ones who got here via “guanxi” (special relationships). Because life in the Hong Kong Garrison is wonderful, it is not taxing at all. Shall we Hongkongers be afraid of them? Of course not. Why haven’t Hongkongers make a breakthrough politically all these years? It’s because our greatest fear lives in us ourselves. Hongkongers lack the courage to face their fears. They think that whoever makes the first move will be suppressed, or even have their property raided and confiscated. This fear came from the June 4th incident, when the older generations witnessed, either on television or at the Tiananmen Square, the PLA slaughtering the people with tanks and armies. Then, of course I should be talking about the conditions that make Hong Kong independence possible. I will now start what I really want to talk about today.

Hongkongers have faced many difficulties and hardships in these nineteen years. Ever since the Handover in 1997, Hongkongers went from fighting for high ideals such as political rights, to struggling for basic subsistence like living space. What we are facing today, what many Hongkongers are facing today is not just the loss of political rights or freedom, but an existential threat. You Hongkongers would find it extremely difficult to rent a flat, and even a niche for your ashes would be a hard to come by. It’s hard enough to sort out the funeral rites in Hong Kong after you die, not to mention actually living here.

We have gone from the pursuit of democracy and liberty, to struggling for basic survival rights and space. Then what made Hongkongers live in agony for the last nineteen years? It was that fateful night in 1997, when Hongkongers and Hong Kong did not choose a road to independence and self-sufficiency, but they chose, or rather, those so-called intellectuals and elites chose for all Hongkongers, and also the next generation, to return to China. They think that “democratic return to China” is the right thing to do, they think it is the only proper and just course. And so Hongkongers, including our generation, and the future generations, have to bear the consequences. We have to struggle for our own most basic right to live and basic freedoms.

Actually what I am trying to say is Hongkongers absolutely have the ability to govern ourselves. I believe Hongkongers do possess the ability to create a happy society, and I believe Hongkongers have the ability stand amongst the West or Japan, amongst these countries and not be found wanting. Yet why do Hongkongers today have to worry about whether our nominated candidates would be disqualified, and feel gracious when they aren’t? Why have we sunk so low? Many people claim that there is something wrong with Hong Kong, but no, Hong Kong is fine. All the problems are with the Chinese, China is the crux of the problem. The Chinese government is the problem, not you Hongkongers.

Hongkongers have wasted too much time. You have done nothing at all in these nineteen years. By nothing, I mean that all you have done is participating in peaceful gatherings - there is nothing wrong inherently with the gatherings, but you gained nothing valuable from them. You did not start to organize the resistance back then when Hong Kong fell to China. That’s what went wrong. We have started late, we need to catch up. Many questioned how could we possibly realize Hong Kong Independence, or they say ordinary citizens would not take heed because they value their job more than their rights. My response is this: every Hongkonger have their own part to play in furthering the goal of Hong Kong Independence. Everyone can do something within their own abilities and positions, like Hitsujiko just said - if you are part of the middle-class, you can make monetary contributions or support the movement; if you are working in IT, you can help Independentist organisations build their websites, can’t you?

I am confident that every citizen have a role to play in promoting Hong Kong Independence. They each have the ability to contribute. Many people (mistakenly) claim: “oh, revolution must be a sudden outburst, it must be done with guns, there must be confrontation with the police, or throwing bricks”, so one and so forth. But revolution not only a sudden outburst of passion, it is also a rational and calculated move. Sun Yat-sen attempted a grand total of eleven revolutions in China. The eleventh time finally worked out, and that, the Revolution of 1911 was just a fluke - the Hupeh garrison was rotated into Szechwan. Still, without Dr Sun, or Huang Hsing and the Revive China Society, without them evangelizing the cause in the South Seas, without them spreading ideas about revolution, the revolution would have never occurred in the first place.

And now what Hongkongers should do in these long and brooding days, besides waiting for the oncoming revolution, is to spread the words. Talk to your colleagues, your parents, your friends - tell them why Hong Kong must become independent now, why Hong Kong Independence is the only way out for each and every citizen. The path to independence may be perilous, but look to those standing with you, look at those familiar faces. In striving towards independence, you will not be alone.

In these nineteen years the Pan-Democrats have preached the concept of democracy at rallies, but how many truly understand what democracy is? The Pan-Democrats have their interpretation, the Pro-Establishments have another twisted and tortured interpretation, yet I reckon that there are two concepts central to democracy: first, the people, that is the nation of Hong Kong; secondly, the sovereignty of Hong Kong. The Pan-Democrats always say that even under the dominion of China, we can still fight for democracy, but we can’t. The Electoral Affairs Commission deprived so many pro-independence candidates of their right to run in an election, this precisely shows that under the grip of China, you Hongkongers would absolutely not be able to call the shots.

Democracy is just self-governance, self-determination. Yet under the oppression of China, it can never be achieved by Hongkongers. Why we have to declare independence, is because we have to take back our sovereignty, before we can control our destiny. Many people say that “peaceful, rational, non-violent, non-profane” assemblies are useless, but I disagree, because this is the first time the idea of Hong Kong Independence is openly promoted to all Hongkongers in such a public manner and in such a large scale. Today is just a forum, a rally at this Tamar Park, a venue where we can exchange ideas. But I hope that in the future, in the foreseeable future, we can return to this place, not for another rally, but for every citizen to gather around and make our own Hong Kong’s Tennis Court Oath! Thank you everyone.

大家好,我係香港民族黨嘅發言人!咁我上次禮拜五集會講錯咗召集人,咁今次講返啱啦,我係發言人,係嘞。咁我叫周浩輝,咁今日就有一個咁大型嘅和平集會啦,好多人對和平集會都有一個厭惡,或者係一個質疑啦,咁因為泛民主派過去十九年都係玩爛咗呢一個和平集會。其實suppose和平集會係for積聚呢一個人流啦,然後就等一個爆發點,然後就係有一啲街頭抗爭,或者係一個反政府嘅行動,咁但係泛民主派過往就係喺民怨最沸騰或者最激昂嘅時候呢,就同大家講「請沿著呢一個維園啦,譬如維園嘅話嘞,請沿著邊一度嘅出口就離開,跟住返屋企」咁樣樣。咁就令到好多好好嘅機會呢,都無機會爆發咁樣樣。

咁呀今日喺正式我想講啲嘢之前,我就講下我哋民族黨嘅一啲宣傳品嘅,咁我相信大家嚟嘅時候呢,喺天橋呢,姐金鐘嗰邊姐海富天橋啦,都會收到份文宣嘅,咁上面呢寫住獨立!跟住一個感嘆號。咁究竟呢份嘢講咩呢,咁你有揸喺手你可以宜家舉高啦,姐係去睇下啦,其實入面就係寫住好多香港人或者係好多一般嘅市民都質疑嘅一樣嘢,究竟香港可以點樣獨立,或者,點解香港係有能力成為一個獨立嘅主權國家。佢哋好鍾意講嘅,「喂宜家獨立咁香港冇水飲喎,餓死你班廢青啦」,咁其實唔係嘅,咁,香港其實有好多,姐糧食方面係唔係依賴中國嘅,中國其實係第一大嘅糧食進口國嚟,水方面其實新加坡係用緊海水化淡。咁香港亦都可以仿效。

咁軍隊方面好多人就話會出解放軍屠城,咁,咁九二八都無出解放軍啦,淨係出咗啲警察姐,咁點解佢唔出解放軍係好重要,因為香港呢一撻地方係收埋咗習近平及其親屬同埋呢一個中共高層好多資金、資產喺香港,作為一個資產轉移之用啦,咁樣。咁所以,話解放軍係會出動然後係鎮壓香港,呢個係一個匪夷所思啦,我亦都唔相信呢樣嘢會發生。

咁軍隊方面好多人就話會出解放軍屠城,咁,咁九二八都無出解放軍啦,淨係出咗啲警察姐,咁點解佢唔出解放軍係好重要,因為香港呢一撻地方係收埋咗習近平及其親屬同埋呢一個中共高層好多資金、資產喺香港,作為一個資產轉移之用啦,咁樣。咁所以,話解放軍係會出動然後係鎮壓香港,呢個係一個匪夷所思啦,我亦都唔相信呢樣嘢會發生。

其實姐隔離嘅解放軍軍營呢,大家唔好以為住著嗰啲,姐皮膚黝黑呀,好健碩嘅解放軍,其實嚟得香港做駐軍嘅呢,全部都係靠關係疏通嘅,因為喺香港做駐軍呢,就好正嘅,呀,唔使咁辛苦嘅。咁所以解放軍係咪一個香港人應該恐懼嘅對象,或者係香港人係要突破嘅一個心魔,其實唔係。香港點解咁多年都唔能夠係喺呢個叫政治上做突破,係因為香港人其實面對最大嘅心魔就係自己。因為香港人無勇氣係去面對著心裡面嗰份恐懼,覺得凸個頭出嚟就會俾人鎮壓,或者係會俾人抄家,呢一份恐懼係嚟自一九八九年六四,老一輩親眼喺電視機又好,或者喺北京嘅現場都好,目睹嘅坦克屠城、解放軍屠城,所導致嘅,咁樣樣。咁呀,當然講返啲香港能夠獨立嘅條件啦,正式開始我想講嘅嘢。

其實香港人好多苦難嘅,十九年間,啊。一九九七年主權移交之後香港人,由開初話想爭取呢一個政治權利,去到今日,大家為著你哋自己最基本、最基本嘅生存空間,喺度掙扎奮鬥。我哋今日面對嘅,好多香港人面對嘅唔單單係無咗政治權利,或者無最基本嘅自由,而係連你哋最基本嘅生存都受到威脅。你哋香港人非常之難,搵一個租所去住啦,甚至係你哋死左之後呢,你哋嘅龕位呢,都係一龕難求嘅。姐係香港人係連死呀,都係十分之困難嘅。可想而知你話喺香港生存係更加困難嘅一樣嘢。

咁究竟係啲乜嘢係令到香港人,喺呢十九年間痛不欲生,由初初只不過係追求呢一個民主自由,去到今日要為自己最基本嘅生存權利同埋空間係去奮鬥,就係因為一九九七年,嘅嗰一個夜晚,香港人、香港唔係選擇咗一個獨立自強嘅道路,而係選擇咗,或者,唔係你哋選擇啦,係有一班所謂嘅知識分子啦,所謂嘅精英啦,係去越俎代庖,幫你哋咁多香港人選擇咗,幫你哋香港人嘅下一代選擇咗,要所謂回歸中國,佢哋覺得民主回歸,係一個正確嘅事,係民主回歸先至係正確,係大義所在,結果今日嘅香港人,包括我哋呢一代,同埋呢一代以後啦,都要承受呢一種嘅惡果,都要為著自己最基本嘅生存嘅權利同埋自由,係去掙扎。

其實我想講就係,香港人其實係絕對有能力,係去自己管治自己嘅。我相信香港人係有咁樣嘅能力,係去創造一個幸福嘅社會,我亦都相信香港人,係有咁樣嘅能力喺國際之間,係能夠出埠,係可以同歐美先進國家,可以同日本呢啲咁好嘅國家,係鼎足而立。但點解今日嘅香港人要淪落到一個地步,就係話一場立法會嘅選舉,「啊,好擔心入唔入到閘,入到閘,我就要慶祝一番」,會淪落到咁呢?好多人話香港嘅問題,其實香港嘅問題,香港一路都冇問題,所有嘅問題都係中國人嘅問題,因為中國先至係問題嘅所在,中國政府先係問題嘅所在,唔係香港人你哋。

香港人虛耗嘅時間其實係太多喇。因為呢十九年間,你哋,係無做過嘢嘅。冇做過嘢嘅意思就係,你哋十九年間都係做著一啲和理非非嘅一個嘅集會,而和理非非嘅集會唔係有問題,個本質係冇問題,但你哋從和理非非嘅集會,從泛民組織嘅集會嗰度,係得唔到任何嘢,你哋亦都冇喺香港淪陷嘅嗰一刻,開始組織反抗嘅力量,呢個先係問題嘅所在。香港人你哋起步得太遲喇,你哋要急起直追。好多人話「嘩,你搞呢個香港獨立,搞港獨,你點樣搞啊」或者話呀,香港人,姐我哋講㗎,「港豬點會理你哋呀,佢哋仲要返工」,我想講嘅係,其實每一個香港人,係推動香港獨立,呢個目標上面,都可以有自己角色,都可以有自己能夠做到嘅嘢,好似呀羊子啱啱咁講,如果你係中產嘅,你咪盡你最基本嘅能力,做呢個叫金主或者後援嘅角色囉;如果你係搞IT嘅,呀,咁你咪去幫呢一個叫做獨派嘅組織,係去做website囉,係咪?

我相信香港社會,任何一個人,喺推動香港獨立呢一個議程上面,都有佢嘅角色,都有佢嘅能力,都可以有佢嘅貢獻。好多人話,「啊,革命一定係要嗰當下就要爆發,一定係要揸著槍,然後就係同呢個警察衝突呀,或者係掟磚」咁樣。革命,係一場一瞬間嘅情感爆發,更加係一場理性,同埋計算嘅一個鋪排。孫中山佢搞中國嘅革命,佢搞咗足足十一次,第十一次先成功,而第十一次成功嗰一次,辛亥革命,佢只不過係符碌,湖北嘅駐軍調咗去四川。但係,如果無孫中山,或者黃興一班咁樣嘅興中會,係去不停喺南洋播道呢一個中國革命,或者係做一個思想傳播嘅工作,革命係唔會發生。

而香港人,宜家要做嘅,除咗係要慢慢等待嗰場嘅革命嘅爆發之外,更加要係革命爆發呢一段長久、鬱悶、屈躁難耐嘅一段等待嘅時間去做嘢,做嘅嘢就係思想嘅傳播。係去同你嘅同學講,同你嘅父母講,同你嘅朋友講,點解香港去到呢一刻一定要獨立,點解香港獨立先至係所有香港人嘅出路。香港獨立呢條路可能好艱難,但望下你身邊嘅香港人,望下你身邊熟悉嘅面孔,喺香港獨立呢一個目標或者進程上面,你會有你嘅支持。

十九年間,泛民主派喺和平集會向香港人講好多民主嘅理念,但有幾多人知道民主究竟係啲咩?泛民主派對於民主有一套演繹,建制派對民主又有第二種嘅扭曲,但我認為嘅民主,係有兩個概念,第一:民,係指香港民族;第二:主,係指香港嘅主權。泛民主派經常話喺呢個中國嘅殖民統治之下,我哋可以爭取到民主,但我哋唔可以。因為今次選管會剝奪咁多位主張香港獨立候選人嘅參選權利,就正正證明咗喺香港,喺中國嘅殖民統治之下,你哋香港人係絕對唔能夠自己話事。

民主就係自己管理自己,自己決定自己嘅命運,但喺中國嘅殖民統治之下,呢一點係香港人永遠都無可能做得到。點解要獨立,就係因為香港人,要掌握自己嘅主權,先至可以掌握到自己嘅命運。今日呢度好多人話和理非非無用,但我唔認同,因為香港獨立呢個理念,係第一次咁公開、咁大型,向全香港人傳播。香港人喺未來嘅路上,我好希望,姐今日呢,就只不過係添馬公園呢度,係做一個演講啦,或者係一個集會啦,大家可以交流啦,我好希望就係,喺不久嘅將來,喺可見嘅將來,大家可以一齊重來呢個地方,並唔係再為咗再一次舉行呢個集會,而係到時我哋全香港嘅人可以聚集喺呢度,發表我哋香港自己嘅網球場宣言!多謝各位。