[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?


[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. 


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


[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."


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.















[5 Aug 2016 Rally] Nakade Hitsujiko: Support Diplomacy by Nationals, Collude with Foreign Forces

Nakade Hitsujiko's Speech on Hong Kong National Party - “Defend for Democracy, Hong Kong Independence” Rally
Transcribed by IRay; translated by Sidney, Marco, Timothy, edited by Chen-t'ang , spoken by Nakade Hitsujiko
[ The English translation is released under Creative Commons, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ]
(Source: Undergrad, HKUSU Instant News)
So! Just a moment ago, I was still working on my speech over there in that seat. Why? Things just happened too quickly. Besides, I just pulled myself away from thinking about the election, and I was thinking about what to do next. And then I was invited to this assembly. I thought there might be just a few thousand people, but... Holy Shit! Look at this fucking crowd here! Right. So, this is how I begin my speech, you all know my style, I’m not a big fan for solemnity, you may even say my style is a bit comedic, whatever you call it... I was a bit worried that it would be out of place on this stage, but thanks to James Chan, he set up a light atmosphere for the stage and my worries were much relieved. Thank you. Also, I want to thank the Hong Kong National Party. Although there were some technical difficulties, the event is nonetheless running quite smoothly. By the way, let me help you next time, I can definitely help you with the technical stuff. Thirdly, I want to thank everyone who nominated me in the New Territories West Geographical Constituency. I can’t stand for the election in this round, but no matter, we will definitely have a go next time. I would also like to thank my benefactors online who gave me the fund necessary for this election game. I'm really grateful. So, let me hijack this stage to express my gratitude. Right.

As you can see, I'm not so good at making speeches. One might say, “Wait a minute, Nakade Hitsujiko. You can't be *that* bad at public speaking! You have so much to say on Facebook, your posts attract so many likes, you’ve certainly mastered the art of bullshitting.” But in fact, if you look at the edit history of my posts, you’ll see that there are a lot of edits, copy-and-pastes, deletions and redactions, with at least a dozen or two revisions. So you see, I am not good at speaking. I hope you will understand that.

People ask me, “Hey, Nakade Hitsujiko, are you crazy?” Am I? (crowd: yes!) So, what does this mean? Am I crazy or not? (crowd: YES!) In my opinion, if you had to ask me this question, I’m really more normal than you. I am just doing the most hyper-normal thing in an era of insanity. Right. But history is very unforgiving. If you win, you’re “normal”. If you lose, you are crazy. But I will tell you this: I will show you all, I will defin-fucking-itely win! I will prove it to you all, all those who think I’m crazy, *you’re* the crazy ones.

So, the screening of election candidates is not only an insult to the five of us, it is also an insult to each and every voter in Hong Kong, especially the ones voting for me. Because I know if I were able to stand for election, I will abso-fucking-lutely win. How many supporters do I have? Come on, think about it.

How many voters do I have? Come on — marijuana legalization, I’m advocating for marijuana legalization for god’s sake! I am calling for the legalization of erotic establishments, of live shows and of hardcore porn, being in line with the Japanese standards— just think about how many are dreaming for this? And then, fuck you, you tell me I can’t stand for election. This is not only an insult to me, this is also an insult to hundreds of thousands of voters who are going to vote for me. This is an extensive insult to a lot of voters in Hong Kong. I know that a lot of people want to vote for me, but unfortunately you don’t have a chance this time. No matter, you’ll have a chance next time. Because you can see that they are idiots without even looking, of course we will have a re-election, jeez! The question is *when* — is it one year, two years or three years? It’s just a matter of time. Don’t worry, we will be able to stand for re-election. About this incident, I was a bit surprised at first, it is within my expectation but at the same time out of it as well. What I expected was that they would ban me from running the election. What I didn’t expect was that I was still banned even though I gave them a convenient excuse to back down. Come on, amending the basic law to make Hong Kong Special… no, no. Requesting the National People's Congress (NPC) to pass a new bill to launch the legal boundaries of HKSAR onto the moon. Thus creating a lacuna in Hong Kong’s sovereignty. Thus becomes a basis towards national independence. Or, they could have just amended the first article of the Basic Law. I gave them a convenient excuse to let me run for the election, they can then avoid judicial review and all that crap. If I win even more votes in the re-election, you’ll just end up with more embarrassment. But you didn’t take my offer. So stupid.

So, I don’t have none of those anger, sadness, or proclamations like “the darkest day”. I have none of that. Because the whole farce is good for us. Especially for my original proposal, in addition to legalising marijuana, legalizing erotic shows, etc., the keystone in my election platform for this year is “Diplomacy by Nationals”, to confirm the de-facto independence of Hong Kong. And then, we’ll invite America, and representatives of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and the Chinese. We’ll go to Beijing together, we’ll bring along the US military to Beijing. “If the Americans aren’t here yet, I’ll invite them; If the Americans are already here, I’ll lead the way.” In Beijing, the three parties: Hong Kong, China and US will hold three-party talks on the prospect of the sovereignty of Hong Kong. However, I’m afraid this cannot be achieved in my first term of office. But, why am I advocating this? Actually, Hong Kong people are too afraid to think outside the box. All these years we have tried to solve our problems internally, but hey, it has been so many years already!! It’s time for some new ideas. We’ve been working on solving the problems internally as always — “valiant defiance”1, or resisting with whatever method. But, can we have some innovation already? Can’t we “collude with foreign forces”? You fucktards always claim the anti-establishment is “colluding with foreign forces”, those lapdog officials. Very well, if we’re going to be accused of “colluding with foreign forces” anyway, if you’re going to call us “running dogs of America” whatever, why can’t we do it once for real? Right. Really. Collude with foreign forces, and redistribute the interests in Hong Kong. Let us split the profits of “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau”, and those damn things, like the third airport runway, the “high-speed” railway, those engineering projects. At least we shouldn’t let the profits go only to the China State Construction company. Why don’t we let the profits go to the Americans? Why not the Japanese? Fuck that shit. Those (Chinese) projects run over-budget and over-time, if we give them to others, so what? Those rotten projects, I don’t know, I don’t know if they would explode, damn! So that’s it, collude with foreign forces, and redistribute the interests in Hong Kong. But now, I won’t be able to form a delegation and lead them on a diplomatic mission with the three parties, I won’t be able to do this in the first term. So, I was saying, I was drafting some documents, planning to form some delegations, to go to the US embassy to let them know about this, to go to the British Consulate to let them know about this. I hope we can attend a US congressional hearing, and let them know how Hong Kong people have been living for these twenty-something years. Damn that shit, you think they can close the doors and beat us like dogs? You think it is fun? Are you done with it already? They’ve been oppressing us for so fucking many years, aren’t you going to come out and shout for help? Of course we will seek out the Americans! Hong Kong is not only about China, not only about Hong Kong people, it is also about Americans. There are so many interests at stake here, and a lot of them are not controlled by the mainlanders. Of course, in the end, we, Hongkongers, are the ones calling the shots, but we can benefit from outside assistance, to conduct international negotiations. Regarding this incident about Registration and Electoral Office [sic], it’s already a subversion of the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, it’s even possible that this was an order from Beijing. This is already a very convincing argument, to allow us to facilitate this round of “diplomacy by nationals”, to request foreign forces to be concerned about and to intervene in the future of Hong Kong, and ultimately allow Hong Kong to build its own nation and become independent.

Maybe you’ll ask, hey, why am I standing here? Seriously, I don’t know how to speak, and I really fucking hate politics, I don’t have what it takes to play with politics. But, I was working in the Information Technology sector, come on! I’m still doing IT now, I like interfacing with machines more than humans. Who wants to deal with those fucktards over there (Central Government Complex) at the back? But why have I taken this step? Because there’s no future. Why? In 2047, the sovereignty limitation will make us… So let’s take IT for example. What is IT in Hong Kong? What are they doing over there at Google? They have a lot of hackers, they are researching and developing new network technologies. Damn it! What is IT in Hong Kong? Customer service! Deployment! And what else? (Crowd: IT dog!) Yes, IT dog. Hey come on, Hong Kong people are so fucking smart, our ancestors and elders, they swam here by clinging onto a basketball, they faced guns and bullets in war and turmoil, those who should be dead are dead already. Hey, after this screening process, we have superior genes, the most intelligent people in the whole world are in Hong Kong. And what else? “Bi-literacy and Tri-lingualism”. Damn you, you want me to do customer service, to do deployment? That’s why, I don’t want to get involved in politics, but in order to have a better career and a better future for myself, what do I need to do? I have to fix this machine. What does this entail? If you can’t fix it on a high level, you drill deeper down to fix the fundamentals. In the end I realised the fundamental problem is that Hong Kong people cannot see their future. I’ve come here, not to proclaim the darkest hour in our history. I’m here to win, I’m here to create a future that you can all look up to and aspire to.

So, thanks to the returning officers: you validated us by shutting us out. If you didn’t shut out these five candidates, including me, then I would be wondering “shit, have I tread on the wrong path?” So, today, I thank you very much.

Hong Kong. I may look crazy to some of you, but I think this place is sometimes even more crazy. Why? Hey, these four characters are so beautiful. Just look at how beautiful they are. Why do our students have to learn those crippled (simplified) characters? They look as if they’re falling apart, like it’s crumbled and fractured. Today our teachers, we should pay our teachers well, to teach them what orthodox Chinese characters are, what Cantonese is, come on. This is what I mean by crazy, sigh.

Also, three hundred billion US dollars in the foreign currency reserve, it’s enough to allow every Hong Kong person to live decently, don’t have to work, just sunbathe on the beach every day, and hire prostitutes and drink every night. You want us to slave away at a HK$9000 or HK$10,000/month job? And live in a subdivided room that rents for five or six thousand? Are you ill? Are you crazy? When a person in society, how do I put it? If they don’t want to face the fact that the system is crazy, they would just place crazy responsibilities, fucking blame… blame it on us. Right, blame it on those who look most normal on surface. But this is no big deal, I will win, to let them know it is they who are crazy. I will fix this machine.

We want Hong Kong to build its own nation and become independent. Not only become independent, this is too easy. How hard can Hong Kong Independence be?! I’ll show you how to do it. We want to build the Hong Kong nation and achieve independence, not only independence. We want “if you need money, we’ll give you money; if you need land, we’ll give you land; if you need women, we’ll give you women”! We will become the Hong Kong Empire.

So, time is almost up, I thought I couldn’t finish everything. In these twenty years, the Communist Party, the life they gave Hong Kong people, it’s already — it’s really hard to talk about it. If you ask me, it’s just common sense. Hey come on, promoting Hong Kong independence and nation building is just common sense! Why do you want me to explain it, come on! Sometimes when I’m promoting my cause on the street booths, I feel sad while talking about it, it’s really hard to talk about it. (to organisers) Tell me when I have 3 minutes left. But, Hong Kong is such an easy place to govern, and they fail at it, they give us such a life, they really deserve to be damned. In these twenty years, hey how hard is it to govern Hong Kong people? Give them a job, they will stay out of trouble, just give them a good chance of upward mobility, just have the government departments pretend to be fair, just like that. And what else? Give them some entertainment. Huh, I’ve been providing a whole lot of entertainment to you already, of course. Hey, good governance is as simple as this. So, after Hong Kong builds its nation and becomes independent, if I join the interim government, or if I become one of the royalty, I’m going to be very happy. Because Hong Kong people are really easy to govern, it’s just that they suck at governance, they’re fucking dickheads.

Look, sometimes I’m depressed as well. I sometimes wonder whether I should emigrate and leave this place. To Canada, or wherever. But then I think: I’m such a genius, if I don’t fix things here, I will… how do I put it? This problem, it’s only us who can fix it. Only we can spark off this revolution of a new era. If I left this place, what about you? What about all of you? So, even though I can leave at any time, I won’t. I will stay here until the final moment. I will fight against them, night after night, day after day. Why, because, look at this armband, it’s not a prefect badge, I’m not a prefect of the “Occupy Central Movement”. What is this? The Hong Kong Royal Family. I originally intended to wear this when campaigning in the election. But I’m showing this off for the first time, because I don’t have a street booth anymore. I hereby proclaim solemnly: I, Nakade Hitsujiko, am a member of the Hong Kong Royal Family. The dignity of my subjects here, is also a matter of my personal dignity. I won’t leave, ever. I will stay here, until I succeed. I’m also giving a final warning to the Beijing government, to Mr. Xi Jinping: Hong Kong national building and independence is our historical destiny, we will definitely become neighbouring countries. But will we be friendly states or hostile states? You choose! This choice is not ours. I hope Beijing’s central committee, the party central committee of our neighbour, I hope they can be pragmatic. China’s economy is about to explode, watch out! Whether we will bring along Americans and subjugate you, or whether we will bring five hundred city-state officers to the Great Hall of the People and talk about our great Chinese traditions over a few rounds of Tsingtao beer, I’ll let them decide.

Finally, how many people are here, I can’t count them all. So many Hong Kong nationals-to-be, this revolution of the era, it’s not only me, it’s not only the responsibilities of the pro-independence, or pan-nation-building candidates. Every single one of us in Hong Kong can do what needs to be done in their own position. For example, oh you’re good at making money, please make more money, and donate to us. Whatever. The Chinese economy is going to explode soon, rent will go down, buy a factory, prepare to revive the manufacturing industries in Hong Kong. As for daily life, we don’t need to use citizens… although we, according to the City-State Theory, we are citizens, and we are also an autonomous city state. We are citizens and we are nationals. But at these times, we have an even pressing need to start from our daily lives… hey! Let’s change our vocabulary a bit. All you nationals of Hong Kong, I greet you! Look, these small things, they can be a… nobody told you to charge and fight every single time, come on. Exhaust all options that are within your abilities, do what you ought to do. Hong Kong people should hold steady onto their own positions, to complete this revolution of our era. We will definitely be successful. It may seem dark now, but, I hope they, how do I put it? We won’t be afraid of darker times. Let the storm rage ever stronger! Hong Kong should have the audacity to become a member of the nobility. Show them our courage! Hey, don’t just complain it’s “dark” every day, to hell with “we are eggs and they are the high wall”. What the hell! Fuck it, we are bricks! We will hit you and you’ll collapse, can’t we do that? Give yourself a fearsome spirit!

Look! Finally! I have some advice for all those who oppose Hong Kong nation building and independence: today, we’re going to strive for independence, and we’re not going to ask your bloody opinion about it! You only have two options. What are they? It’s a given that Hong Kong will be established as a nation and become independent. You can either pack up and go back to the “Strong Country” in the north, to gleam in the glamour of being a Chinese national -- the most unwelcome tourist, those contaminated milk powder scandals, comprehensive systems of laws, selfless one-party systems, those things we’ll just leave it to you people to experience, and it won’t be me who will suffer! Or, you can repent, believe in localism, become a Hong Kong citizen again, and prepare to become a national of Hong Kong!

Those who support Hong Kong nation building and independence will be blessed, and their sins forgiven. There are various gods and buddhas who will bless this epic event of the century. Those who dare obstruct it will be damned. They will burn in hell! Those who oppose independence, or those who supported the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, I’m now giving you a chance to repent! Look, I’ll tell you a funny story. One day, when I was standing beside a street booth, a man came over and knelt before me, he said I’m a member of the royalty, so he knelt in front of me, he wanted to kill me with shame… (please give me one more minute). But he didn’t know that I will proudly accept his adoration. Kneel! Revere me! You will be blessed and your sins forgiven! All of you who allowed the transfer of sovereignty to happen in 1997, I’m now giving you a chance to repent, and to become a Hongkonger again. Now is your chance to relieve your sins, and avoid burning in hell, and instead bathe in the glory of being a Hongkonger.

Lastly… Build the Hong Kong nation, become independent! Build the Hong Kong nation, become independent! Build the Hong Kong nation, become independent!

Going forward, I will conduct “diplomacy by nationals” though a massive operation to collude with foreign forces. Stay tuned for more information on my Facebook. Thank you!


1. Hong Kong Columns (Translated) usually translate 勇武抗爭 as valorous confrontation.
(Title given by editor)
(Nakade Hitsujiko, née Terry Chung Ming-lun. It is believed that he changed his name in 2015.)






可能問,喂,諗返我點解會企喺度呢?其實講真我又唔識講嘢,我真係唔撚鍾意搞政治,我唔係搞政治嘅人材。但係,我本來撈IT㗎大佬!我而家都撈緊IT,對機器開心過對人添,日日對住嗰班吓,後面嗰班撚樣。咁但係香港,點解我會行到呢一步?因為無未來。點解啊?2047,主權嘅一個嘅大限令到我地。以IT界為例,香港嘅IT係咩?人地Google做緊咩啊?好多嘅hacker啊,研發緊新嘅網絡嘅技術啊,最頂尖嘅技術。喂,香港高地價,仲唔係應該發展呢啲咁嘅長期投資啊,高端嘅一啲嘅研發。吖,頂你個肺,香港嘅IT係咩啊?customer service囉,deployment囉。仲有咩話?(群眾:IT狗!)IT狗囉咪。喂大佬啊,香港人咁撚醒,我地嘅祖先長輩,攬住個籃球游水落嚟,喺戰亂之中槍林彈雨,要死嘅都死哂。喂,經過品質篩選,基因優良,全世界最聰明嘅人就喺香港。仲有咩話?兩文三語。頂你個肺,要我地做customer service,做deployment?所以呢,我唔想搞政治,但係為咗我可以有一個比較好嘅事業吖,前途啦,咁我都要點啊?fix返好呢部機器。啫係點啊?高層次嘅地方搞唔掂,一路就修理下層嗰層嘢囉。最後發覺原來個根基就係香港人嘅。我地呢度睇唔到未來,而家我嚟到呢一度,唔係要講啲咩最黑暗歷史。我嚟呢一度係要贏,同埋創造一個俾大家睇到嘅一啲嘅未來。


香港,我睇落我啲行為好瘋癲但係我覺得有時呢個地方比較瘋癲。點解呀?喂,我地啲字咁靚。你睇吓呢四隻字幾靚。點解要我地啲學生學嗰啲咁嘅殘體字啊?甩皮甩⻣,aam4 aam4 caam4 caam4。今日我地啲老師,高薪請我地嘅老師教佢地咩係正體字,咩係粵語啦大佬。呢啲咪痴線囉。