Lewis Loud: Joshua Wong Is Patriotic. Not Surprised. But More Importantly…

Joshua Wong Is Patriotic. Not Surprised. But More Importantly…
Translated by Cesar Guarde-Paz, edited by Chen-t'ang, written by Lewis Loud [Originally written in January 2015]
Original: http://dadazim.com/journal/2015/01/drama/ 

Joshua Wong said that a revolution needs ammunition, and a “revolution” was different from the the sacred umbrella in their hands; afterwards, he joined the TV programme “Face to Face”, where he reiterated that he was patriotic or, otherwise, he would not go to Victoria Park’s candlelight vigil for June 4 Tian'anmen Massacre.

The whole picture can only be grasped when these remarks are taken all together. There were many slogans at Admiralty’s Occupy “Big Stage”. “Do not forget the original intention” is one of them. They prefer “Umbrella Movement” than “Umbrella Revolution”, and they say it’s because there was no ammunition. Again and again, they reiterate the importance of being patriotic. All of these are a hidden confession to the authorities of their true motive and position: We are not engaging in a revolution to overthrow this regime. It is just a crowd moving across the streets. We are patriotic. Beijing or our mother country, please don’t forget the “true intentions” that we Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students from the Pan-democracy Camp have. We do not actually wish to do anything!
What are the “real intentions” that should not be forgotten?
When they stormed into the Civic Square, even Joshua Wong himself could not have predicted that a movement by a small group of citizens would have been handled by tear gas, causing Hongkongers to take the roads for two months without reaching a mutually satisfying state in the end. Now that the movement is over and the low-pressure politics has been emerging, Joshua Wong, related the treatment he received in the police station to his future, naturally would not want the Communist Party to take him as the culprit of the disorderliness of the Occupy Central on September 28, of the in Hong Kong society, of the humiliation the Communist Party has suffered since then or of the turmoil among the factions in the Party.

“Don’t forget the original intentions” The original intentions of Benny Tai and others were to get arrested in October to achieve a greater, faster and better result, while the original intentions of Joshua Wong were to get arrested after a few people stormed into the Civic Square. But Hongkongers will not sit down waiting for their “leaders’” performance. When the tear gas was deployed, the situation became out of control, and the Hongkongers occupied everywhere, leaving Admiralty for Causeway Bay, Canton Road, and Mong Kok. The attitude in the “volunteers” and the “pickets” from Admiralty attempted to permeate these places, however, the mass stayed there against these people’s dismissal suggestion. That is when those from Admiralty started to utter things like “we need to remember the original intentions”. Or in translation, it means “we didn’t expect to go this far!”
Joshua Wong is a patriot. No need to be surprised. As for Joshua Wong’s self-declaration of patriotism, Ko Wai-yin, a columnist, also expressed her opposition. It doesn’t surprise me at all. Right at the beginning of the establishment of Scholarism, founders such as Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow stated in an interview by “iSunaffairs” that they have deep feelings towards China and the June 4 Massacre (See note 1).

It can be said that the members of Scholarism and that of the Hong Kong Federation of Students are fundamentally not different from the Greater Chinese democrats (the Labour Party, the Democratic Party, the Civic Party, the League of Social Democrats and so on) in terms of the attitudes towards China. In a party, you always find the shadow of another parties, and vice versa.

In 2011, Fred Lam stated his opposition against attacks to the Democratic Party. Joshua Wong supported him on Facebook. While Agnes Chow appeared in an anniversary dinner of the League of Social Democrats, a pro-Greater China party. This is their nature, and there is nothing to say about it.
Patriotism is the nature of the Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students, as well as the Pan-democrats. Therefore, it explained their hatred against the word “umbrella revolution” and their fear of the uncontrolled masses (in Mong Kok, Causeway Bay, Canton Road, and those who expect the updated means), which are their true patriotic intentions — Do not work against China. But when you get raped by it, remember to cry a little so as to show your “conscience” and “character”.
Do not anger the Communist Party!Everything goes back to the Associate Professor of Sociology at CUHK Chan Kin-man’s words on the reason to initiate the Occupy Central campaign: Ever since the political reform in 2011, the middlemen have stopped contacting them. Therefore, they engaged in the Occupy Central campaign wishing that Beijing would listen to their concerns (EJ Insight).

The “Big Stage”, the international journalists, the artworks, and many other demonstrations exist because the nature of this movement is a show. Precisely, it was a play for Beijing to see, somewhat hoping Beijing to take a step backward -- be it changing the original mindset for real or merely for saving face.

The so-called “original intentions” in them were like a helpless woman begging her father-in-law to take his orders back in ancient Chinese world. It was a mild persuasion, rather than a confrontation. The last thing that woman will do is to anger his father-in-law; similarly, the last thing these parties will do is to anger the Communist Party. It all makes sense then to see them against people’s idea, online or offline, to stop them from launching a protest or upgrading their means on the celebration of the Chinese “National Day” -- all of them work like a human chain preventing citizens from being out of control.

By understanding the patriotic stance of Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students -- do not anger the Communist Party -- it simply becomes clear to people as to why their actions are consistent. “Do not forget the original intentions” is after  all an empty slogan.

They termed it as “original intentions”. Reason being that they know how unacceptable it would be to many if they are being truthful as “let us all make a show under the premise of not angering the Communist Party”. It doesn’t sound good. So they keep shouting “Do not forget the original intentions”.

This slogan is in their favour. At least innocent citizens may have thought “original intentions” as some pure/truth-seeking measures without demanding for further explanations. Only their counterparts will know what it truly is.

After all the diligent work during these two years as a follow-up of Occupy Central, Chan Kin-man said with relief that after September 28, Hong Kong has come to understand “our city does not have the capital for a revolution.”

Correct me if I’m wrong. It sounds to me that he’s saying the whole point of Occupy Central was to inform Hongkongers how useless confrontation is.

Alex Chow, the former secretary general of Hong Kong Federation of Students, as well joined the escalation to prove how useless escalation can be. Same logic, same choice of word, they are both "moderate” pan-democrats, who have a tendency to surrender. The comments of Alex Chow, Chan Kin-man or Joshua Wong towards revolution are intertwined with each other -- unless you are one of them, whatever you do are wrong and useless.
You are just another Szeto Wah
After one Szeto Wah has finally passed away, a new Szeto Wah has been reincarnated in the figure of Joshua Wong. Voldemort are so powerful that, after death, it can divide the human soul into different parts. This is called human soul fragmentation, and thus his soul was separated into three political bodies: the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union, and the Democratic Party. Similarly, the also patriotic Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung is just another one. And the young Joshua Wong is also one of those patriotic folks defending the Chinese democracy front for the Chinese democratic movement. Everything they ever did, therefore, is to avoid making the Communist Party mad. Under this framework, all their actions are reasonable indeed.

Back in the day, Szeto Wah will repress the “three strikes”, namely the workers’, students’, and the shopkeepers’ strikes, after the June 4 Tian'anmen Massacre memorial, stopping Hong Kong from “losing control” and distancing himself from the “motherland”. Today’s Joshua Wong handled the abortions of the National Education protests and the Umbrella Revolution -- comparable to his predecessors.

Szeto Wah was secretly in deals with you-know-that regime and was maintaining the democratic movement and self-awareness in Hong Kong to a controllable extent. What Joshua Wong is doing now, added with his words and deeds, is not so different from Szeto Wah.

People like Szeto Wah and Joshua Wong are popular to the mainstream “audience”. With a great political energy, a strong fund raising ability, a great deal of blind yellow-ribbon fans, and also the endorsement of Jimmy Lai – they basically have what they want. In the following chapters of Hong Kong, if the situation remains this way, surely ”democracy” will take us another 30 years… without a guarantee of success for certain, if you know what I mean.

Sacrificing Hong Kong in the name of China had happened. Although in the new high school system, history is not a compulsory subject, if we are unfortunate enough, we might see Joshua Wong making history again… just like Szeto Wah  did in the past.
Note 1: Original text from the interview by “iSunaffairs”:
Joshua Wong said, “Why do I want a Tian'anmen Massacre vindication? It is because I long for democracy in China.” He believes that June 4 is just a checkpoint, and if the government refuses to admit it, China would not have achieved democracy. “There is still a bit of freedom of speech and freedom of association in Hong Kong. so when Hong Kong can still commemorate June 4, we should stand firm and from there fight for Hong Kong’s democracy and for China’s democracy.”

Some may feel that it has nothing to do with Hongkongers whether China has democracy or not, but Joshua Wong said, “First, you have to admit that you are Chinese, and since your life happens to be in this piece of China, anything that happens in China will eventually have an effect in Hong Kong. Thus, whether or not China has democracy will have an effect on Hong Kong’s possibilities for democracy. The June 4 vindication is an opportunity for Chinese democracy, so a peaceful June 4 is also important for every Hongkonger.”


The Land without Law: the House of Lawmakers?

The Land without Law: the House of Lawmakers?
A Brief Discussion on Judicial Intervention in the Irregularities of the Legislature
Written by Cheong Tsz-lok, BSS (Govt & Law) & LLB II, HKU, edited by Chen-t'ang
Original: The Undergrad, April 2016 (Law Association Column)

The Financial Committee of the Legislative Council has recently passed the extra funding for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Railway Link (XRL) project with their votes unrecorded through the hand-raising mechanism, despite complaints by pan-democrats and protesters inside and outside the Legislative building. Some members voted both yes and no simultaneously. The motion carried.

The view that standard of our honorary representatives in the Legislature has long been disappointing is shared by supporters on both sides of the political spectrum, though the figures that came to their mind may be different. When “Voting them out” is hardly a practical solution, the Judiciary may be the last resort.

The courts of Hong Kong are justified to correct the procedural irregularities by the Legislature and the Court has currently adopted an excessive conservative approach.

The general reluctance for the Judiciary to interfere with the internal management of the Executive decisions is based on the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court explicitly stated this in a judicial review case concerning construction of railways: “[t]he Court can only apply the law. It does not run railways.” (Re Chan Kai Wah, per Reyes J)

The Court is also reluctant to step into the shoes of the Legislature. In Cheng Kar Shun, the Court ruled that the legislature had the power to determine the extent of statutory power, privileges and the degree of immunity enjoyed by the Court. As long as the procedural improprieties was not inconsistent with the Basic Law, the Court will not intervene. In the later case of Leung Kwok Hung concerning the decision to stop the filibuster, the Court has adopted a noninterventionist approach. It was held, to ensure the order, efficient and fair disposition of LegCo
business, it was both desirable and necessary to refrain from intervention. This reasoning is weak as ultimately the Court merely resorted to passive deference without further justification. 

In these decisions, the Court, as usual, relied on mainly English authorities to rationalize its deference attitude. The over-reliance on English authority has made the ruling alien to Hong Kong. Under the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, the judiciary has no mandates to decide how the other branches should make decisions. Without a written constitution, the Parliament is the source of its own powers and all other sources of statutes and case law. The Parliament will correct itself as a fully elected Legislature. It is against such background that the UK courts are at least theoretically not permissible to intrude into the realm of the other branches.

On the other side of the globe, the wholesale adoption of British authorities does not suit Hong Kong, as a city without a fully elected legislature nor a truly functioning accountability system. The same degree of deference is unsatisfactory that the balance between the branches is not firmly entrenched and respect of separation of powers by the Executive, wielding immense administrative power buttressed by a loose pro-establishment governance alliance, is doubtful.

Professor Yash Ghai says: “Sometimes it is only by court intervention that a modicum of legality can be preserved… In Hong Kong, the point is particular pertinent since neither the Hong Kong executive and legislature is fully elected.” The Basic Law provides the basis of judicial review rather than the abstract Sovereign concept. A purposive reading of the Basic Law, taking how the Court can secure rule of law from the two branches into consideration, suggests that the Court should have inherent jurisdiction to examine the procedural irregularities of the Legislature as well. The Court must not adopt a hands-off approach for preservation of legality hinges on how willing the Court is to scrutinize executive and legislative activities.

It is true that the above proposal may open the floodgates and politicize the courts, usurping the dedicate balance between the three branches. The operation of Legislature may be severely hindered. Nevertheless, the self-imposed blanket exclusion of jurisdiction over the legislative activities does nothing to ensure true separation of powers, where the Court, as an impartial arbitrator, must bear the burdens to decide the legality of legislative activities.

The preposition that the Court can rule whether there is a power to conduct particular affairs but have no power to inquire the operation and irregularity, however reckless and excessive, is hardly a satisfactory approach.

It is time for the Court to fulfill its constitutional roles as a guardian of the rule of law and separation of powers. After all, the line between internal legislative procedures and substantive legislative power is blurred. It is hoped that the precise circumstances that the non-compliance with the rules will lead to an invalidity of the law will be outlined, and the judgment will provide, if not deterrence, to the Legislators, in the days we still have some expectations in our institutions.


Lee Yee: Opportunities and Advice for Joshua Wong

Opportunities and Advice for Joshua Wong
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Lee Yee
Original: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20160425/19585321 

(Joshua Wong on Demosisto's opening ceremony, from Delight Media Hong Kong)

Demosisto, established under the brand-name effect of Joshua Wong, has been bombarded by the media, pro-Beijing camp, mild pan-dems and radical localists, and we should have some reflections on such opinion. But what comes in to my mind was the speech by Andy Chui Chi-kin, the 48-year-old winner who defeated Christopher Chung in the 2015 District Council election. Chui said in the Umbrella Movement, he felt upset when he saw students protesting on the frontline for democracy, as well as the violence from the police forece. He felt that his political apathy before has caused the dire consequences now, and the buck should be on the shoulders of middle-aged people, as he felt "a strong sense of atonement". From atonement to reflection, his friends said many candidates walk over as no one contested in that constituency, so he started to challenge Chris Chung.

If Chui felt guilty for his political apathy before, then those democrats who supported "the reunification" shall feel more guilty. From the beginning of Sino-British negotiation, I opposed the handover, but from time to time, I felt uneasy when recalling that I cannot awake the public. Now, when we see youngsters stand out against the fall of Hong Kong, middle-aged and elderly people might not be able to take the bullet for the youngster, but at least do not fuel the fire. Youngsters will err, and will be naive and immature, but chances should be given to them. Shouldn't the adults feel guilty when Joshua Wong stood out against national education when he was only 14 or 15?

I can hardly criticize people who participate in political confrontation - be it mild or radical, or regardless of their errors. Because I am only writing, but not sacrificing as those participants who have stood out. Those who comment on politics should always doubt the authority, and be lenient to opposers.

Though I am lenient, I shall remind all participants - only modesty brings progress. Even if they are young, the mistakes made by Demosisto have aroused lots of critics, including promotion, setting up bank account, web domains, not to mention the "self-determination a decade later" in response to the future of Hong Kong. Joshua Wong thinks this is a PR disaster, and said the reason behind is "the requirement and standard from the public to a political party and its figures are so different from a student organisation" - meaning Scholarism was a student organization, so public's requirement and standard were lower; now Demosisto is a party, so the requirement and standard are higher now.

This is merely shifting the responsibility. In fact, Joshua Wong was impressive when he led the Anti-national-education campaign. The standard of the public was not higher, but only with the same expectation, or even lower standard would be acceptable. In fact, the performance was way worse than before. The fundamental problem is there is no foresight nor vision in the party, but rather circumventing the target as politicians do. As a "party of young people", it fails to tell the society how they want Hong Kong to be. When compared to the clarity of Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous), the ambition of Andy Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party), Demosisto has showed that they are "old".

With years of social movement experience, Joshua Wong is no longer rookie. Experience and aura can be a person's capital and his liability, and the way to get rid of his liability is genuine, instead of oral, modesty. I left in the middle of the launch of Demosisto with Denise Ho and But Ming, because this is what I want them to know.


Lewis Loud: Oriental Fascism

Oriental Fascism
Translated by Ryan L, edited by Chen-t'ang, written by Lewis Loud
Original: Passion Times Vol. 41

China is a fascist country. Modern China abides by the belief in “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein  Führer”. Modern China is an empire masquerading as a nation state.

For an ethnicity to have more than one country, like Austria and Germany, is a universal standard. Yet Chinese do not abide by this. They believe Hongkongers are Chinese, thus bound by the belief “blood is thicker than water”, therefore Hong Kong must accept Chinese rule. To mention independence is certainly treacherous, but even autonomy and localism are identified with separatist and treasonous intent. 

These beliefs are full of the elements of fascism. Westerners turn pale at the mere mention of fascism but America, ignorant and tolerant of the Communist East, supported China in opposing the Soviet Union. Hence, the largest fascist country is thriving today. Churchill once said that communism and fascism are twins that share the DNA of totalitarianism. 

90% of Hong Kong’s population are descendants of Chinese immigrants experiencing the rule from proper China since the Qin dynasty. They belong to the same ethnicity. But many entities may grow out of one ethnicity. Germanic peoples founded more than one country. The British founded America later. Once separated there was never any talk of reuniting with mother Britain.

China’s opposition to any secession through evocation of nationalist sentiments is merely hyperbole. In reality, the Chinese Communist Party cares not a wit about territorial integrity. Russia has swallowed vast chunks of Chinese territories since the Qing dynasty but Jiang Zemin signed a treaty demarcating present borders, forsaking the recovery of those lost territories. So why are the Chinese who live on these forsaken territories not traitors?

Ethnic Perceptions with Chinese Characteristics 
If China really cared about ethnicity, each province would be autonomous and establish their nationhood, then confederate to discuss matters that affected the entire region like Australia or Germany. Each province would be able to choose its own method of governance or development in accordance with the national condition yet the ethnicity would still belong to one entity. Yet China describes itself as a multiethnic yet united country. It is united so as to protect the party’s ability to monopolise all the power and profit; it is multiethnic to rationalise China’s invasive expansionism, its plundering of others’ lands. 

An ethnicity can only have one country. A country can only have one leader. Such beliefs if used in the West would be identified as hegemony, fascism and racism. Yet to the pompous westerner, eastern fascism is culturally specific to cultural complexities thus should be tolerated. This is tantamount to Westerners demanding gender equality and feminism yet tolerating the deprivation of female rights in Islam due to different values. 

Pretentiously cosmopolitan Hongkongers have very vague understanding of ethnicity. The Chinese nation (zhonghua minzu) is an artifice created by intellectuals at the end of the Qing and the beginning of the Republic era with only a century of history yet a majority of Hongkongers embrace it wholeheartedly as an earth-shattering revelation. Community eminences like Joseph Sung, Vice-Chancellor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong is an example. Yet Hong Kong with its modern meaning is already 176 years old, meaning the Hong Kong ethnicity is older than the Chinese nation by sixty or seventy years yet described as a fantasy. 

If the Hongkonger as a nation is a joke, where are the unshakeable foundations for the Chinese nation? Undoubtedly it is the mischief of power; the powers that be may have the power to define. The relationship between the signifier and the signified are unstable, artificial or arbitrary, yet, humans are the author of everything. All is silent, only power may speak. 

Hong Kong is not a nation because she says she is not. Once she decides she is, she is. 


Statement of the Generation: 10 Awareness as a Nation and Mass Movement

Statement of the Generation: Awareness as a Nation and Mass Movement
Translated by Ryan L., written by The Undergrad session 2015, HKUSU

"There is no assembly, there is only the people!"
The cry “demolish the big stage” (meaning the leadership) still rings in my ears. History has turned this page. In the new spring of 2016, unrest broke out in Mong Kok resulting in a policeman aiming his gun at the people. The crowd threw bricks in reaction. Thus did Hong Kong begin the New Year amid the din of confrontation. Police batons were struck, fires broke out on the streets. The red of the New Year was that of the protesters’ struggles, the shadows on the street highlighted in the red of flames.       

Outraged we berate the government. Outrage is generated by fear. Yet this fear is not nameless for it is the government which has devolved into fear. It is only through endless struggle that we may feel our presence and fill the vacuum bred by fear. In the Battle of Mong Kok our courage came from the strength of the people. Being Hongkongers we must support one another.

During the Umbrella Movement, the leadership in Admiralty cut ties with Mong Kok. In the face of pressure from the police, the leadership in Admiralty chose to draw a line between themselves and the people. The violence outside of the line was condemned as detrimental to the halo of morality. However, we saw that those wearing this halo was elitism, class superiority and politicians’ hijacking. Yet we failed to see the failure of political morality. That was the "moralism" that caused us to change.

The leadership claimed to be civic resistance ready to be arrested believing that this virtue would awaken our citizens. Academics propagated that non-violent resistance was the only moral avenue. Various theories and speeches told protesters that only compliance with the strategies of the big stage would prolong the struggle and eventuate in democratic triumph. We saw much moralising to the point of fatigue. We believed that political virtue would lead to a change in reality but if all these public speeches sufficed, why don’t we believe in the path ahead? Why would we question the appropriateness of the leadership when the people are forced to be absent? We sense that a force is festering amid the people which will fester into a more intense, dearer struggle. We are uncertain where this force will take Hong Kong.

On the night of the Mong Kok unrest, we clearly saw the pent-up anger explode. The protesters unleashed the displeasure nurtured since the failure of the Umbrella Revolution, fanned by the unreasonable actions of the government, the ire from waiting for Hong Kong's democratisation combined with the questionable behaviour of the police. The tension that existed already between the people and the police was pushed to tipping point by the FEHD's treatment of street hawkers. 

Presently we do not know what confrontation will ultimately bring us. In the face of police ready to act, there is no way to calculate the pros and cons of the result. From the beginning we were prepared to fight for justice late in coming. We believe that instinctive resistance is Hong Kong’s final road. It is the basic condition for being human. During the struggle we were members of the people. Everyone rose to protect the values we cherished at heart. A common force, forged by common belief motivated us to move forward. We are the people. The people is us. We do not even know whether this same people bears similar localist beliefs, do they hate the Chinese government’s whimsical bullying of Hong Kong nor do we know their character, their visage, their backgrounds or whether they are leftist, rightist. Membership in this group has only one common denominator: the perception that Hong Kong is our home, we will not give her up. 

China reneged on the promise of One Country, Two Systems, obstructing realisation of democracy and autonomy. It has turned the HKSARG into a puppet which seeks to control the media. On the one hand it uses all administrative instruments at its disposal to monopolise TVB’s right of management, on the other hand encroaches on print media. This regime uses violence to colonise our identities, denigrates the position of Cantonese, demolishes historical structures, oppresses Hong Kong identity and tries to impose patriotic education. This regime sows terror: it does not properly handle livelihood issues such as the lead poisoning incident; Chinese police are able to exceed jurisdiction to abduct people; it reduces freedom of speech; the police abuse their powers to arrest citizens and on many occasions attacked victims. This regime sees the working class as enemies, ignores justice, regards development as the highest virtue and does its best to authorise infrastructure projects to further integrate Hong Kong into China. It does not hide the political motivations behind its policies. For Hongkongers not to resist is to shame basic conscience and dignity. 

But, as we actively resist the oppressive government, what do we wish to accomplish? From the Umbrella Revolution to present we have witnessed the emergence of populism. The liberty, cultural habits and local traditions originally enjoyed by Hongkongers are being eroded by the intense imperialism of China. Discontent is being intensified. Though each cause for discontent differs from each person, the discontent coalesces and mutually cooperates then strikes. Populism has become an important factor for Hong Kong’s future struggle. 

We are a member of the people. The righteous fury of populism is a factor in the formation of our character. Yet simultaneously we must maintain our political promise - that perfection promised to the common body of the Hongkonger ethnicity. These two elements decides the direction of our political identification and the basic political positions of future strugglers. The people are our partners yet this partnership is not one of mutual restraint and harm. On the other hand we must have:
  1. The Hongkonger ethnicity is not founded on the basis of bloodlines or race. Membership is formed from history, language, law, peasant culture, tradition, geography and civic values. 
  2. Liberalism and localism are twins. The construction of a liberal society requires a complete democratic mechanism. The precondition of this democratic mechanism is the existence of “my community” so that the people may use the democratic mechanism as a platform for public determination. Thus the democratic mechanism cannot be lacking in : 
  3. Common ethnic confirmation of identity but without the precondition of unanimous identification. The maintenance of common ethnicity is established on trust in the mechanism of autonomous consultation so as to generate the collective good, pursuing the common welfare.
  4. The Hongkonger nation is not superior to any other nation but it is not unique and capable of establishment in the world; 
  5. The Hongkonger nation is a product of the imagination and a representation of emotional attachment, its value worthy of Hongkongers’ actualisation;
  6. The Hongkonger nation should have the right to political self-determination and respect other nations right to the same. 
Populism will play two roles in Hong Kong’s future: a factor in social progression and a pivotal force for overthrowing an illegitimate regime. Localism is not only an analytical tool that explains the social changes of Hong Kong, it is also important Hongkonger ideology and a pivot in the reinforcement of Hong Kong’s democratic culture. Though the last seems a distant goal in the present political environment, we must be steadfast in our hermeneutic role for it is the most prominent moral foundation of localism. 

There was initially no clear logical connection between localism and populism. However, in reality we have participated in the rise of populism and simultaneously devoted ourselves to establishing the theory of localism, fleshing out its contents. The future freedom and democracy of Hong Kong which awaits actualisation depends on whether we can properly draw out a common road for both nationalism and social movement.