[DQ in Rural Rep Election] Eddie Chu Hoi-dick’s response after being DQed from running 2019 rural ordinary election

Eddie Chu Hoi-dick’s response to English press after being disqualified from running 2019 rural ordinary election, 2 December 2018
Reporter: (on whether returning officer’s decision is reasonable, whether he is worried about his political career and whether he will take any legal actions)

Chu: Well, first of all, in my previous letter to the returning officer, I stated clearly that he does not have the right for political right based on the interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law and the judgment of election petition of Chan Ho-tin. He did not reply a single word on this particular issue. And secondly, I want to tell my fellow citizens that the problem right now, or the political censorship right now, is not only … one needs to declare not supporting HK independence, but one also needs to reject the right of other people’s freedom of speech in order to gain a right to run this rural representative election. I think this is absurd and it is in violation of the Basic Law. It also signifies a very dangerous trend of political censorship, among not only participants of election but fellow citizens. Concerning my political career, at this stage, I will continue to be a legislator to serve the Hong Kong citizens. And I will seize any chance and any role within the democratic campaign to contribute in this common cause.


Ching Wing See: This is What You Asked For

Ching Wing See: This is What You Asked For
Translated by Gordon, written by Ching Wing See
Original: https://www.facebook.com/Cemetery.News.page/photos/a.729801777127442/2132354740205465/? 

This morning, some people have been mourning over the loss of Lee Cheuk-yan in the by-election, claiming it as “the fall of Hong Kong”. Meanwhile, some commentary claimed that localist opinion leaders (such as myself) have been the worst, as we advocated for a “scorched-earth”/”kamikaze voting” strategy and dissuaded voters from supporting pan-democrat candidates, resulting in the loss.
What are the facts? There are several of them. For starters, in new public housing estates such as Tak Long and Kai Ching, Lee Cheuk-yan yielded way fewer votes than Chan Hoi-yan, who was backed by CCP’s propaganda machine and election manipulation mechanism, which means that the gerrymandering done by the Liaison Office and Hong Kong Government has been effective. As pan-dems such as Lee himself welcomed Chinese immigrants with open arms and advocated for their access to public housing, the situation today is but the result of what they had previously planted, and has nothing to do with others.
Secondly, the mechanism for pan-democrats’ campaign propaganda has come to an end. On the election day, 3 newspapers voiced their support for Chan, much like what the Apple Daily would do for Lee, but due to the difference in the make-up of readers (and let’s not bother to discuss those of Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po), Apple Daily failed to operate like Oriental Daily. Oriental’s day-to-day coverage on small government handouts and vulnerable groups, as well as their mocking of university students, all appeal to the aesthetics and ideologies of HK’s blue-collar workers. Whereas to assume all blue-collar are pro-establishment would be a slippery slope, it is, however, an easy job for Oriental Daily to lead the masses into hating a self-aggrandizing and incompetent union leader. Despite the fact that Apple Daily readers are also the most vocal ones to interact on the Internet and can hardly be manipulated by media, Apple Daily wouldn’t stop rooting for unpresentable candidates. No matter how decent they seem at first, Apple’s Choices either slowly fade into oblivion, like Joshua Wong, or are simply an embarrassment to start with, such as Alvin Yeung. To put forward candidates like such almost amounts to announcing the death of the campaign in the entire election. Some pan-dems, such as Longhair Leung, even went to the depth as to provoke and taunt undecided voters. Such electoral suicide reflects pan-dems’ complacency and refusal to learn.
Thirdly, these politicians are unbearably annoying to start with to the point they almost call for a beating. Both Lee and Frederick Fung were sellouts to HK people on various political issues, and they fail to manifest any passion and dedication in their day-to-day community service. These numerous notorious incidents have been deeply embedded in our memories. As the colloquial term say it, the reason why we “vote with tearing eyes” is because even their usual supporters find them simply unpalatable. If a political sector who needs to run for campaigns have run out of choices but old useless candidates, then it’s simply announcing its doom and demise, especially during the times where the youth struggle to find a place and are at odds with useless old bums. As they approach retirement age, instead of competing with youngsters and embarrassing themselves, how about being supportive to youth and taking up mentoring roles?
Lastly, if one seeks help, one should remain humble, especially for politicians, whose role is but to appeal to the masses. They need to stop bickering with voters; otherwise they might end up seeking employment service themselves.


Hong Kong Didn’t Even Show up in Pence’s Speech: Whose Fault Is This?

Hong Kong Didn't Even Show up in Pence's Speech: Whose Fault Is This?
Translated by Gordon, written by Lewis Loud
Original: Hong Kong Didn’t Even Show up in Pence’s Speech: Whose Fault Is This? 

Mike Pence, Vice President of the US, Source of photo: Internet
Mike Pence, the Vice-President of the United States, delivered a stinging speech about China at the prestigious Hudson Institute, with every paragraph pinpointing at every flaw of China. Starting off by retelling the story where the US has supported China for the last century, the speech depicts China’s betrayal amidst and despite the US’ benevolence; as the speech unfolds, it sounds as if the US is giving an ultimatum to China before launching a full-out attack. This U-turn of policy bears a striking resemblance to what was laid down in Michael Pillsbury’s book: The Hundred-Year Marathon.

What's more unsettling is that, whereas Pence's speech did mention many countries, Hong Kong (HK) was completely left out of it. While it is true that US-HK Policy Act still remains in effect, such is no guarantee of peace during turbulent times like these. Today, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) is facing political oppression from the HKSAR government, as Financial Times journalist and FCC Vice President Victor Mallet’s working visa has been rejected, as a payback for hosting a talk by Andy Chan, Chairman of the Hong Kong National Party (HKNP). The act of terminating of Mallet’s visa amounts to sending him in exile. The HKSAR Government, by its conduct, revealed the fact that Hong Kong is no longer a free port nor an international metropolis, but instead “another Chinese city”. China has been in breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law for a long time, and such conduct has been understood by the US. Sooner or later, if not already the case, HK will be seen as an accomplice of China, and there would be no way we can stay out of it once the US decides it’s payback time.

Just a month ago, HKNP wrote to President Trump, claiming that HK had suffered a total loss of its autonomy, thus asking the US to review US-HK Policy Act, as well as to revoke HK and China’s respective WTO memberships. Back then, quite a lot of criticisms came from the political and business sectors, saying that this would send HK to its demise. On the other hand, Alan Leong, a senior member of the pan-democrats, issued a high-profile rebuttal through Apple Daily, stating his disagreement over the claim that HK has suffered a total loss of autonomy, and claimed that HKers should “persuade” the Chinese Communist Party to act according to Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law…

As we can never tell whether Leong's seeming nveté was genuine, there is little need to comment such an act. Given, however, that the pan-democrats have occupied so many seats in the LegCo, Victor Mallet’s incident is in turn a reflection for what they have achieved so far amidst such political reality: ZERO.

Let us look deeper into it. The US’ grievance over China stems from China’s intellectual property theft and breach of trade regulations. While taking advantage of international trade, China maintains its shady connections with enemies of the international community, such as Iran and North Korea, and HK has played an pivotal role as an intermediary. The reason why HK can intermediate between the West and these shady links is not that HK is particularly brilliant, but because of the differential treatment it receives from the international community and, in other words, their belief in the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine.

The international community has now realized that their tolerance is the root cause for HK’s infiltration of the international trade order, and so it’s not hard to imagine how HK will be treated by the international community in the near future. For example, as China has instilled a credit system to spy on and control their citizens, they would need to import spy cameras, for which HK is the transport hub. When the West has imposed an embargo on sensitive materials to China due to the outbreak of human rights crisis in regions like Xinjiang, there is no way Hong Kong can stay out of the embargo list. In another example, having breached trade regulations by doing business with Iran, ZTE had to accept direct management by the US to avoid going bust altogether. We will see HK receiving similar punishment very soon.

Moreover, the trade of raw materials to and from North Korea, as well as money laundering, were all done through more than 160 HK’s shell companies with North Korean background; selling oil to North Korea also involved HK shipping companies.

Void as it might seem, human rights remain a powerful pretext for certain actions. In 2017, German firearm manufacturer Heckler & Koch suddenly refused to sell MP5 submachine guns to the HK Police Force, as the German government had made a requirement in 2015 that all firearm manufacturers must assess the buyer’s level of corruption and democracy before selling, due to the worries that these firearms would be used by dictatorships to oppress their people.
Another less obvious reason for this is that the West is worried about leakage of sensitive and strategic materials, such as weapons, as well as steppers that are used to manufacture CPUs, into countries like Iran or China, through the help of intermediaries. An experienced intermediary, it is no wonder that HK is becoming less and less popular amongst the international community.
How did the HKers respond to this, then? Elites like Alan Leong would never stop preaching the same old drivel, claiming that the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine remains intact, and that HKers stand the same common ground of democracy, freedom and human rights with the free world, and therefore the differential treatment ought to continue. Nice as they might seem, foreign politicians, of course, have their own agendas. Whereas democracy and freedom are but an empty promise, conflict of interest is the real deal. As HK moves from a free city to an accomplice to China’s dirty work, the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine stops being the glory of the world, but a backdoor to the political and economic order of the world.
As a backdoor is a gateway through which a system is invaded, how would any knowing computer engineer not try to block it?
All these years, the politicians who tried to lobby in the US put all their emphasis on the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine. From a Western perspective, isn’t this some sort of circus act all these years? On one hand, the West knows HK has become China’s handyman and is doing damage to the world order; whereas on the other, they keep hearing these blokes from HK emphasizing on how high-degree autonomy they enjoy and how the One-Country-Two-Systems promise remains intact. “Is this a joke?”
Technically and factually speaking, HK IS China’s handyman. If HKers want the free world to help maintain the One-Country-Two-System promise on one hand, AND want to keep the differential treatment such as low tariffs and qualification recognition on the other, how would that be different from asking the free world to grab a knife and stab themselves? In fact, the more HKers emphasize on the existence of the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine, and the less HKers are willing to admit the fact that it has been defeated and that it has surrendered, the more would HK register as a sleeper cell on the radar of the international community.
To maintain the willful belief that the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine as the common ground between HKers and the international community, mainstream HKers have refused to look at the reality and, essentially, have been living a lie for all these years. The only concern for the West is this: Aren’t you guys all involved in hacking the order of international trade? You took all the privileges given to you by the international community, hacked into the system as a handyman, THEN came back to us, demanding we tolerate you despite all the damages you’ve done, AND continue giving you the differential treatment as well?
It is self-centred for the HKers to only want their business and professional services (also businesses) to continue to foster. From a foreign perspective, as China and HK have successfully merged as a whole, the denying of the merge and demanding of differential treatment means HKers only want to enjoy all the rights without fulfilling any obligations. Just like China.
What do we have to do in the face of such a hostile environment outside? For starters we need “civil diplomats”. Opinion leaders need to stop living in denial, and need to plead the truth to the international community, that HK has completely fallen and its autonomy has suffered a total loss; that HKers, however, like the international community, are victims of the One-Country-Two-Systems lie as well as the Chinese tyranny; and that all the damages done to the international community had been done by China, hijacking the name of HK. We HKers need to free ourselves and cast off the yoke of bondage known as the game of elections, and stop telling foreigners all we wanted was the status quo. Embracing the status quo means HK WILL be punished alongside China.
HKers need to sever the ties with China as soon as possible, whereby we at least need another way of civil diplomacy, to tell the international community and our allies our true opinion: HKers do NOT wish to be an accomplice for China’s attempt to dominate the world, which is why HKers ardently seek true autonomy through independence. This is not only to benefit HKers themselves. It is only when HKers obtain true autonomy and set boundaries can HK stop being the threat to the international order.
HKer’s primary perception of the world is that freedom and democracy have to be mentioned hand-in-hand with the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine. At the end of the day, HKers didn’t want to offend China and would like to remain as China’s handyman on one hand, meanwhile also wanting to remain as an ally of the West on the other. The fact that China took an action against a foreign journalist means that it has used HK as a pawn. The colonial master known as China has decided to sacrifice HK, and HK, as a subordinate, never had a chance to make a difference even if it chooses to side with its master. As we refused to choose whether to jump off the sinking ship or to remain on board, we’d still have to face the fact that the ship IS going to sink anyway.
The problem for HK is not that it doesn’t want to side with the West; it’s that it doesn’t get the opportunity to do so. As Pence made his speech, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen immediately thanked the US for having the “moral courage” to speak up for Taiwan. Ties between US and Taiwan has been increasingly close these years, and an “Abandon-HK-Keep-Taiwan” policy has almost reached a consensus.
It is virtually impossible for HK to safeguard its own interest and values with its own existing system, and with the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine, it renders it virtually impossible to seek help from foreign allies as well. To respect the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine is to let China do whatever they like, and HK is doomed to be the backdoor China uses to hack the rest of the world.
5 months before, Alan Leong discussed HK politics at Asia Society, and all of a sudden he started to defend China (footage starting at 13:54), claiming that if the US had believed China to be in breach of the trade protocols, they should seek to resolve their differences within the framework of WTO, and they shouldn’t expect China to play by the rules if US had started a trade war, because by doing so would make China steer further away from democratic values. To Americans, this act is but defending this rogue regime. Didn’t you want democracy and autonomy for starters?
Fast forward to 5 months later. Pence made a stinging speech about all the crimes China had committed against the US and the world as a whole, including, on a domestic level, suppressing human rights and freedom of speech, and on an international level, influencing American elections, stealing confidential information from American companies, forced technology transfer, using “debt-trap diplomacy” against Belt-and-Road countries, and militarizing the South China Sea, to name a few. NONE of these conflicts can be resolved within the WTO framework, and as the US has made clear that they do not intend to do so, as they are seeking to establish multi-lateral trade relations anew.
Pence’s speech has rendered Leong’s defense a joke, as it has shown the extent how HK politics has lost touch with reality.
In his speech, Pence did mention Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, North and South Korea, South China Sea, as well as countries in the Belt and Road Initiative, leaving HK behind. Obviously, it is because HK has been so pro-China for such a long time that it stops showing up on the radar of the international community. Starting from Martin Lee fighting for the US to treat China as a most favoured nation after the Tiananmen massacre, to Alan Leong’s defense for China at Asia Society, HK politics has remained as pedantic as ever.
Whereas we never expected anything radical to come out of these politicians in fancy suits whose main concern is getting elected; had they stayed distant from China and treated them like an adversary (even if it was just a pretense), it would have made a huge difference in perception. Few people could tell the difference between defending HK and defending China. When they beg the US for their mercy to spare HK in the trade war, while ALSO saying good things about China at the same time, isn’t this revealing of their true desire to remain as a two-faced handyman, but with different wordings?
Then, if the international community forgets about HK, how would this be China’s responsibility at all? It is this entire generation of HKers who couldn’t make sense of their own identity and position or, worse yet, deliberate two-faced free-riders that exemplify the old saying “those who insult themselves shall be insulted likewise”. As we enter a time of a black-and-white, all-or-nothing showdown between China and the US, being two-faced means getting slapped in both.


To Yiu-ming: HK's Fiscal Reserve Soon to Be in Hands of Beijing!

HK's Fiscal Reserve Soon to Be in Hands of Beijing!
Translated by HKCT, written by To Yiu-ming
Original: https://www.rfa.org/cantonese/commentaries/tym/com-09062018095716.html?encoding=traditional 

The astronomical fiscal reserve of the SAR government has done little to solve our social problems. As bad as that may be, it is merely a reflection of the perversion that is our political system. Yet if this humongous sum of taxpayers’ money were to be handed over to the state-owned enterprises, unexplained and unchecked, that would assail our tradition of insulating SAR’s finances from the Mainland government, further ruining Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

Financial Secretary Paul Chan recently revealed in a blog that the HKMA is talking to Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on investing in their overseas projects that yields stable returns as stockholders with part of Hong Kong’s trillion dollar fiscal reserves.

Ay, there’s the rub: Is such investment profitable? SOEs have a monopoly in their domestic market, and hence is fairly sheltered from failure. Investing in their shares when they come are justifiable if the price is right and the purchase well communicated. Yet what is proposed is significantly different: we only know that the investment will be into SOEs’ overseas projects, with no idea of what it entails. We do not even know which SOEs are involved, or the projects in question.

To be frank, profitable projects have no difficulty seeking capital investment. Risky projects would naturally yearn for SAR’s investment, yet should we really let patriotism cloud business acumen?

The next problem lies in the means of investment. The SAR Government is hoping to buy stock and wait for dividends. Unlike the Government’s current investment purchases, such as shares, foreign currency and bonds, which are all highly fungible. But for the Government to hold stock of a specific company is much riskier, and the stockholders’ rights is completely at the mercy of the company’s constitution, organization, and legal systems. In such cases, there is no guarantee of great dividends even if the company were to make great profits. 

The third problem lies in the nature of such investment. SOEs are hefty investors abroad; so of their projects are controversial, to say the least, involving the sales of arms or copyright infringements. Even if these projects were to yield great profits, the SAR government should still keep the moral dimension in mind. Not to mention, with the US-China trade war going on, the SAR Government ought to stay out of it and refrain from all commercial activities the US see as unfair trade practices; it might be even wiser to keep one’s distance from SOEs, so as to protect our status as a customs-free area.

Perhaps to the FS, it is within the HKMA’s own purview to manage its own investment portfolio. HKMA may choose SOEs as it chooses stocks and bonds. These actions are unworthy of a detailed account on the FS’ blog. Yet the three questions I have raised above are of great importance. Mishandling our investment and we suffer losses, or worse, find ourselves caught in the crossfire of the current trade war. With this in mind, how can the SAR’s clandestine practices bring assurance to anyone?

Of course, the bigger question lies in our fiscal reserve trickling into the hands of Mainland SOEs. What’s to follow? handing our reserve to the government or Guangdong or even the national development bank for them to manage like Macau did? With the decision-making process hidden from view, Hongkongers have no way of knowing where our fiscal reserve and the HKMA’s profit is spent. We may even end up with the Central Government taking over Hong Kong’s reserve, only to provide the SAR with an annual return of 4%. 

Now, of course, these worse case scenarios still require the consent of HKMA and the SAR Government, but since when was the last time the SAR Government ever said no to Beijing? 


港督柏立基就職演說 Governor's speech at Inauguration Ceremony 23 Jan 1958










港督葛量洪就職演說 Governor's speech at Inauguration Ceremony 25 Jul 1947

以下是港督葛量洪於1947年7月25日在娛樂戲院(King's Theatre)的就職演說全文(譯文):








My wife and I were deeply touched by the warm and friendly welcome which we received on our arrival this afternoon and which we are now receiving from those of you present in the King’s Theatre.

We come, as has been said in the address of welcome, not as strangers to Hong Kong; it is in fact to us our second home. We were married here. We have spent more than half our married life, more than half our working years in this Colony. We have a number of friends of [illegible], and it was indeed very pleasant to see so many well-known faces on Queen’s [illegible] this afternoon. I also have doubt that amongst this audience before me there are many others whom I count as amongst my friends and who I hope count me as their friend.

Nevertheless, though it is not as a stranger that I come to Hong Kong, I realise full well that the Hong Kong of 1947 is a very different place from the Hong Kong that I left in 1935. There are many more problems, and these problems are much more difficult and much more intricate.

We, however, are not unique in this. There is no country in the world today that does not have its problems somewhat similar to ours, to a greater or a lesser extent. The question of shortages for instance, food — that most important and fundamental of all things; shortages of rice, shortages of wheat, shortages of sugar, shortages of meat. Materials, shortages of timber, of steel, of cement. Shortages of manpower — engineers, doctors, teachers, technicians and shortages of money.

Now these shortages that I have mentioned affect everything, not least housing. During the last few months, I have visited a number of countries and in all of them housing was a great problem. Some of the smaller communities in the South Pacific, in Australia, in New Zealand, in India, in Canada, in the United States, – yes, even the United States, – and the United Kingdom, housing was the tremendous problem.

Then again education is affected: lack of teachers, not enough schools. Health is affected. Communications are affected. Where is the stuff to design these airports; the materials to construct them, and the money to pay for them? The cost of living two, the tremendous increase in the cost of living, comes directly out of the shortages.

The world also suffers from a great deal of political unrest. Fortunately, in that regard, Hong Kong is free and as has just been said in the address of welcome to me, Hong Kong is about to take a great step forward on the democratic path by the establishment of a Municipality, and also, and this is sometimes overlooked, another very important step — the creation of an Unofficial majority in the Legislative Council.

No is maybe said that I have rather stressed the difficulties before us. I have not done that with the object of giving myself an excuse for throwing up my hands in despair and saying, "the task is too big, I just can't do anything about it.” On the contrary, I reckon, as I know you do too, as a challenge for the utmost exercise of one’s ingenuity for the utmost effort in putting forth one’s strength, both mental and physical.

At the same time, I think it is a good thing that we should realise that there are other parts of the world that have their problems as well as we have. Nevertheless, so we should regard of problems in their proper world setting, it is in our own house that we have got to put in order. It is no good trying to solve other people's problems – that is quite beyond our strength. We must concentrate on our problems and we must help ourselves. By doing that we shall of course relieve to some extent the United Kingdom from the burden that she bears. Also, in helping ourselves, we should work in the friendliest and closest cooperation with all my dear friend and neighbour, China.

The recovery to date of Hong Kong has been remarkable. I have heard it commented on very favourably in a number of countries, by people that have had the opportunity of passing through Hong Kong and seeing what has been done. I think that reflects the greatest credit on my predecessor, Sir Mark Young. And all the people in this Colony.

This afternoon I do not propose to go into the details of the various tasks ahead of me. I want to study them on the spot, but I assure you that I shall not hold anything up and delay matters. Nor do I propose to list all the problems that we have to tackle. There is, however, one matter on which I feel I must comment, and that is the University. I regarded as a matter of the greatest importance that the University should become a first class institution, a beacon of enlightenment and culture in this part of the world.

You, Mr Morse, and Mr Chau, and ladies and gentlemen, have offered me your cooperation during my tenure of office. I gladly accept that offer. Without your help I can do nothing. So my concluding words or, "let's go forward together to make a shining example of Hong Kong by showing what work and cooperation can achieve.”

(From China Mail)

港督尤德就職演說 Governor's speech at Inauguration Ceremony 20 May 1982














Sir Philip, Sir Sze-yuen, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am very grateful for your kind words and for the warm welcome which has been extended to us. I have just taken the Oaths of Office as Governor and Commander-in-chief. I am proud and honoured to have been appointed to this position. I recognise the heavy responsibility for the good government and well-being of the people of Hong Kong which this office bears and I pledge that I will do my utmost to fulfil it.

Hong Kong has much of which it can be proud. In a highly competitive world the enterprise of its manufacturers and businessmen and the skills and application of its workforce have brought it prosperity and success. This, in turn, has provided the means for remarkable achievements in housing a rapidly increasing population, in the spread of education, the improvement of medical and social services, better recreational and cultural facilities, and impressive transport works. With the expansion of the Legislative Council and creation of the elected element in the District Boards the channels for the expression of the wishes of the people who live here have been widened. From a modest port Hong Kong has grown into a large and modern city ranking with the other great cities of the world. I pay tribute to all those who have worked to achieve this transformation, and particular tribute to my predecessor whose outstanding contribution has been so widely recognised.

Hong Kong has indeed come a long way since I first saw it more than thirty years ago. But there will remain much to be done. In this changing world no society can or should stand still. I come at a time when many important programmes are in progress on which people count for improvement in all that can make Hong Kong desirable as a place in which to work and bring up a family, and a city to be proud of. It will be my constant endeavour to advance these programmes. To support them there will need to be sustained economic growth and an environment in which the drive and enterprise of all those who contribute to that growth can be given full scope.

For this to be achieved Hong Kong will need confidence in its future. It is not surprising, given the circumstances of the lease that this issue should be now be raised. I believe that there are sound grounds for confidence and that the omens are good. The commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to Hong Kong and the interests of its people remains firm. The relationship with the People’s Republic of China on which so much depends has never been more cordial. If there is an issue to be addressed, there is also in addressing it, a common recognition of the vital importance of the continued prosperity and stability of this Territory and a common wish to preserve them. In consequence, I see good reason why confidence should remain high.

The world is going through a difficult economic period and the going may be tough but Hong Kong has shown that it can survive and prosper in hard as well as easy times. In this enterprise, the Government must also play its part in partnership with the private sector.

In all this, I know how much I will need the advice of the Executive Council and the support of the Legislative Council and I thank Sir Sze-yuen for his promised support of Unofficial Members. The Government will depend too on the vital roles of the Urban Council, the District Boards and the many advisory boards who contribute so much to make Government effective and responsive to the interests of the people of Hong Kong. I look forward to working with all the elements of the public service, of whose high quality I am aware and I thank Sir Philip for his expression of their support.

As Governor, it will fall to me, with your support and guidance, to lead the many-sided efforts of your Government. I pledge again that I will do all I can to contribute to their success, to the welfare and prosperity of the people of Hong Kong and to making the future of this Territory a bright one.

港督麥理浩就職演說 Governor's speech at Inauguration Ceremony 19 Nov 1971















Governor's speech at Inauguration Ceremony

Following is the speech delivered by the Governor, Sir Murray MacLehose, at the Inaugural Ceremony at City Hall on November 19, 1971:

I am most grateful for the general remarks of Sir Hugh, Sir Albert and Sir Cho-yiu. Your remarks and the reception we have received since we landed have deeply touched my wife and myself. It is indeed wonderful to come home to Hong Kong again after all these years.

I am proud to have been appointed to the governorship of this colony. It has been impressed on me in my travels how well-known and respected Hong Kong is throughout the world for its success, and for the happy example which it presents of multi-racial operations.

I realize the weight of responsibility for its well-being that now devolves on me. I am profoundly conscious of how well my friend and predecessors, Sir David Trench, bore his responsibility; and on taking up this office. I would like to pay tribute to the determination with which he upheld the interests of the Colony.

Though I have visited Hong Kong at fairly regular intervals, I have not lived here since 1962. I have no illusions that Hong Kong to which I now return is the same as that I used to know. The statisticians have explained, for example, that since then economic activity has trebled, consumption of electricity has trebled, and bank deposits have quadrupled.

As I crossed the harbour today, I could see for myself that factories and great buildings have multiplied. It has always been a Colony which has earned admiration for the success, courage and ingenuity with which it has faced and overcome great problems.

Now it has taken its place as one of the great cities in the world, a manufacturing and trading centre of very considerable international significance, a growth area which is without parallel, a port and communications and tourists centre of importance — one could continue the list indefinitely.

My first task will be to do all I can to ensure that this growth and expansion continue. Economic prosperity provides the only foundation on which all our hopes for the future can be built.

In the past few weeks, there have been worrying signs that protectionism, especially in our main market, has re-emerged in the world and threatens our prosperity and that of many others. It is my fervent hope that this phase will prove temporary, and that the world will return to comparatively liberal trading conditions. It is such conditions which have fostered the extraordinary rapid growth of economic activity in the world in the last 25 years.

It is in the highest interest of Hong Kong, indeed it is in the highest interest of the world, that they should be maintained.

As Hong Kong has become more prosperous, it has been possible to look beyond the bare necessities of existence and devote more resources to improving conditions of life. Great strides have been made. I look forward to hearing more about these developments and the policies behind them, particularly those concerning housing, medical services, social welfare and education including, of course, technical education, and how they and other policies to be developed can show increased benefits to the people of the Colony in the next few years.

Our object is prosperity with social progress. I am very conscious of the fact that this can only be based on the confidence generated by sound administration, political stability and, above all, law and order. I have heard of concern about recent trends in the observance of law and order. Here again, I look forward to hearing what policies are planned to bring about an improvement.

I fully realize that in Hong Kong this problem is as complex as it is in most other great cities, and that solutions are not easy. Certainly in finding them the active cooperation of all responsible people is vital.

I arrive at a period of rapid change in the world, and, in particular, in the Pacific area. Hong Kong can only benefit from the new situation. Its main characteristic is recognition of the facts of international life and this should encourage calmer and more productive relations in the area.

I am confident that Hong Kong will continue to flourish and grow in this new climate, to find new outlets and new profit for the skill and ingenuity of the people, and to improve the conditions of their life. One day let them more nearly match the beauty of the sea and mountains that surround us.

It will be my purpose not only to maintain our present level of development but also to encourage both Government and the community to further progress so that the people of Hong Kong will find it an even better place to live in.

This, ladies and gentlemen, will be my object in the years ahead.

Ends/Friday, November 19, 1971
Issued at HKT __:__



Letter from David Ford to Civil Servants of Hong Kong on 16 June 1989

Letter from David Ford to Civil Servants of Hong Kong on 16 June 1989
Translated by Chinese Language Authority, Civil Service Branch, written by David Ford

(In June 2018, a Facebook page Rufixation posted this letter, which was found in a former government department office. With authorization, we have typed the full text in English and Chinese for people to refer upon in the future.)

Dear Colleague,

At this time, we in the civil service share with the community as a whole a profound feeling of shock and grief at the recent bloodshed in Peking. I am sure that you, like most people in Hong Kong, are watching with the concern the way in which the situation in China develops. We must all hope that the moves to modernize and liberalize China will be given fresh impetus in the years ahead.

Despite their anger the people of Hong Kong have reacted to recent events in China with tremendous dignity and restraint. This is particularly so in the case of the civil service and my purpose in writing to you is to thank you all for your dedication and responsibility in these troubled times. You have continued to provide the community with a standard of service of a level of which you can be proud, while at the same time demonstrating solidarity with the rest of the people of Hong Kong. Your loyalty to Hong Kong and all it stands for is highly appreciated.

The tragedy of recent weeks makes the role of the civil service even more important to the future of Hong Kong. There may be difficult times ahead, but we have faced difficult times before. No matter what the problems, Hong Kong has shown an ability to adapt and bounce back unequalled anywhere. I have no doubt that we shall do so again.

It would be pointless to suggest that what has happened has not had a major effect on confidence in the future of Hong Kong. I know that you must be deeply concerned. But this makes it all the more necessary for us, as civil servants, to work towards ensuring a stable, and prosperous Hong Kong both up to and beyond 1997. One thing that has emerged from this present situation is a unity of purpose in Hong Kong. We cannot go back, we can only go forward, plan ahead and build for the future. In going forward our duty and commitment is to Hong Kong and its people.

I realise of course that in difficult times it is the civil service that is in the front line, that it is that civil service who may bear the brunt of the community's concerns, and that it is the civil service to which many people time for leadership, guidance and help. I have set that confidence in the future of Hong Kong has been seriously affected; what has not been affected is the confidence in the civil service; its sense of duty and dedication and its commitment to serve the people of Hong Kong.

Yours sincerely,

David Ford

Chief Secretary









布政司 霍德


Admit It, You’ll Eventually Be Surrounded By A Generation Who Haven’t Experienced Tian’anmen Massacre

Admit It, You’ll Eventually Be Surrounded By A Generation Who Haven’t Experienced Tian’anmen Massacre
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Lewis Loud
Original: https://sosreader.com/n/user/@paleistmac-Lewis/article/5afe7b26fd89780001549811 

The student unions of eight universities told the press that they won’t organize any Tian’anmen-related events. Many “yellow ribbons” were angry.

I don’t know what do undergraduates think about this. A few years ago, I started to urge people to boycott the rally held by HK Alliance and to sever ties with patriotism. But that doesn’t mean that I completely know what they are thinking about because I haven’t talked to any SU members. I am already not as young as they are. With loads of criticisms against the youth, old “yellow ribbons” see them as “revolters” as the youth does not follow the old’s “traditions and values”.

What kind of emotions do these old people expect post-1989 youth to have? If such a youth says he will commemorate the Massacre forever, that would be most hypocritical, isn’t it? “If I support democracy and freedom, I should bear in mind the Massacre for 10,000 years” - this is the political correctness passed on by “HKA-HKPTU-DP” (HK Alliance, Professional Teachers’ Union, Democratic Party). My generation doesn’t really give a damn, not to mention the latest generation. Admit it, things will change. You will eventually be surrounded by a generation who haven’t experienced the Massacre.

But if you think that the next generation will completely forget that, then that is showing your arrogance. This generation has experienced their own confrontations and has desires for dignity and liberty. Localists, independence supporters, self-determination supporters have arisen in an environment way more difficult compared to the era when the British ruled. These people have paid a higher cost than the older generation. Being charged, getting bankrupt, in exile, being imprisoned, being ridiculed, etc.

I don’t think that these “yellow ribbons” do care about democracy and freedom of Hong Kong. They care about the Massacre’s façade more than the succession of democratic awareness. They do not accept that the world will be taken over by a generation which has not experienced the Massacre. They do not stress the desire for freedom, which all human beings share, nor respect the differences between the young. They keep reiterating their limited participation - I watched the massacre live on TV, I went to Concert for Democracy in China, I went to protests…

Emotional experience was special, huge but uncopyable. If you haven’t experienced it, you haven’t. But this generation will remember 28 September 2014, Occupy Movement, Mong Kok unrest and names in these episodes. The older generation won’t care how to make this generation (which has a totally different emotional experience) feel what they felt back then. Do the older generation care about the democracy and freedom of Hong Kong? Do they think that they have done a good job in the past three decades? Do they believe that things will not be taken over by the younger generation?

They seem to care more about staying inside their echo chamber for the rest of their life, including murmuring “students are but cat’s paws“. These students can face Hong Kong upright. Democratic Party has fought for a retrogressive political reform and had private backroom deals with the Communists. Leung Yiu-chung, one of the standing members of the HK Alliance, surrendered the chairman seat in LegCo, leading to six lawmakers being disqualified. Every time, there were people missing when key bills in the Chamber are to be voted. Tightening of the Rules of Procedures, XRL, co-location, infrastructure appropriations were all passed. Don’t you care? “Standing one night on the stage in a year makes a person upright, having clear-cut protagonists and antagonists …” Doesn’t that sound TVB dramas?

The older generation cares the most such annual party. They do not care about how many battles were lost in the reality. As long as they “win” in the night in such virtual rally, they are satisfied. They will then point the finger at protesters as spies from the Party and making riots. Those who have decades of remaining life won’t bear these.

For those “yellow ribbons”, they probably can’t imagine why is this unbearable. With those mean comments, you might think nothing happened over the past few years or even decade. They have loose standards for the authority but strict to the weak. They might think that their own contribution is comparable to building temples and beneficial to the public.

In the past two or three years, students have bid China farewell, but still, see the Massacre as a “humanitarian disaster” and had a few forums, trying to localize the commemoration of the Massacre. Yet, people who are not going to Victoria Park are slammed. Those “yellow ribbons“ had loads of antagonistic articles and words against the students, who did not have an equal amount of article exposure and airtime. If this is an election, this is equal to “scolding at your supporters”. Those who scold so loudly have their dreams come true. The students don’t think it is necessary to organize such event. Things should be said have been said.

If we say forcing people to love their country is a tyranny, then HK Alliance forcing the latest generation to have “Massacre emotional experience” is equally “Chinese”. There is metal fatigue, and a long-term emotional blackmail also generates antibody in people’s mind.

The right mentality is simple: those who want to go can go, and those who don’t are not sinners. People can still collaborate on different matters after that night. “Yellow ribbons” can tolerate Alvin Yeung, who was absent for many key meetings in LegCo, and Leung Yiu-chung, who surrendered the chairmanship, yet they just can’t tolerate undergraduates who have different mindsets when it comes to identity and “Massacre emotional experience”.

“Undergraduates ought to cry for the Massacre” - this is just the imagination of one generation. No one will be on the stage forever, not me, not you and not that incident.


[HKUSU Undergrad] Hong Kong Youth’s Declaration of Joining the CCP

Hong Kong Youth’s Declaration of Joining the CCP
Translated by Bernard Wong, written by There’s Still the Party [Undergrad, April 2018]

This article is to fight the case for Hong Kong youth.

I am increasingly concerned that society should do away with the stigmatisation of the term “Useless Youth” (Or Fai Ching in Cantonese). 

Is it really appropriate to generalise the younger generation in this manner?

Are Fai Chings bound to be complaining about the injustice of society, or indulge in the pointless fantasy of Hong Kong Independence? Are young people bound to oppose the government, be anti-China, set to disrupt Hong Kong and provoke hatred? Do you honestly believe there are that more Edward LeungAndy Chan and Ernie Chow? On the contrary, young people in Hong Kong are an obedient bunch, with no lack of patriots. They yearn for all the “benefits" of China, from easily realisable opportunities such as cultural exchange tours between China and Hong Kong and internships up north to long-term goals such as a seat in the establishment. They may have always supported their motherland with banners held high, or had their eureka moment and saw the red light.

Therefore, I say there are many types of young people. In 2014 it might seem like there are lots of zealous youngsters, eager to change the society. Yet when you look at Carrie Lam’s campaign last year and see the familiar young faces among her campaign, you have to "appreciate" these smart timeservers, the future pillars of society.

When Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the world believed that Hong Kong youth is at the forefront of the battle for freedom and democracy, oblivious to the fact that these youngsters are one of a kind. Believe it or not, give it a decade or so and the course-mate who sat next to you in SOCI1001 will manage to get his spot in the Establishment. Your comrades who charged the metal blockades along your side during the Umbrella Movement have already pledged his renewed allegiance to the Hong Kong communists, transforming himself as a well-off young elite. Chinese colonisation would not turn Hong Kong into Xianggang, it was by the "locals".

Accumulate the Fruits of United Front Efforts, 
Reap when it's ripe

The CCP is good at conducting a "United Front” (tongzhan). There has been no lack of studies on how China throws its weight around in Hong Kong. For example Christine Loh’s “Underground Front: The Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong” pointed out how the CCP as the ruling party and an underground organisation interfered in Hong Kong all these years, lasting long before the transfer of sovereignty. On the social level, Chinese corporates or organisation branches devoted cash and effort to build community networks, and would even take in “loyal oppositions” to consolidate their power.

Dr Lam Wai-man, Honorary Assistant Professor from the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong and Dr Kay Lam Chi-yan published “China's United Front Work in Civil Society: The Case of Hong Kong” in an academic journal in 2013. It illustrated how the CCP does not conduct its united front work in detail. Five measures have been adopted instead (integration, cooptation, collaboration, containment, and denunciation), covering areas including the media, legislature, community organisations and education… etc., successfully realise the coordination of different organisations, allow them to absorb young people to join the ranks of government supporters, whilst weaken the strength of the democratic camp. The endeavour is well structured and organised.

We have been told that there’s a thing called ‘Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and guarantee for our way of life remaining unchanged for 50 years’. Yet to prepare Hong Kong’s transition into just another city of China, and to ensure Hong Kong becomes connected will be connected) with the Motherland it is in its culture, politics and way of thinking, the effort of United Front becomes quintessential. Most importantly, they are exporting Chinese population to homogenise the peripheral place of Hong Kong, while ensuring the younger generation will not become a challenge to China and disrupt its policy in Hong Kong.

Twenty Years of Endless Inducements

Approaching young people, controlling the curriculum, developing youth organisations and recruiting potential talents to catch the baton became tasks of “greatest importance”. Hong Kong people, in their naïveté, believe that they have stopped the brainwashing project from becoming part of daily life by winning marginally in the battle against ‘National education’, yet they cannot stop the party from luring the younger generation. 

Let us talk about the exchange tours to China and the “Mainland internship programmes” which we are more familiar with.

We say the pro-Beijing parties give out some goodies (such as dumplings) and subsidised banquets from the Party to buy hearts and minds in elections, and then get the elderly to the polling stations by coach buses. Aren’t the younger generation also lured by these goodies of a different kind? Opportunities to exchange and do internships in the Mainland are plentiful. For example, before the beginning of the second semester, the Internet is flooded with promotions of "Mainland internship programmes”, driving many university students wild. Just to declare, I am not looking at these internships through red-coloured lenses. I would just like to use this example to show that there’s nothing to stop the humongous and systematic communist-backed organisations attracting talents with economic incentives. To participate internships in China and appreciate its natural beauties and grandeurs are unavoidably becoming the “collective memory” of the new generation of youngsters.

I wonder if participants know that the hosting organisations are from the pro-Beijing camp or are the underlings of the CCP, and that the participants need to express their “takeaways”, their new insights of the nation and sentiments towards the development of the nation with reflections/ video… or to be drunk, to lick the boots of these communist-backed organisations, why are so many university students so eager to participate? I think there are two reasons: 

First, the practical consideration: why not if it’s so cheap?

The activities hosted by the harmony-inducing organisations are insensibly cheap. Participants can choose different major cities in China, participate in internships lasting one to two months, and get more than half of their deposit back upon completing the internship. All things considered, the cost is practically free. Beyond exchange tours to keep you up to date on “national conditions”, there are tours that are responding to China’s policies such as “the Belt and Road Initiative”, offering low-cost opportunities to visit Central Asia and Eastern Europe. High cost-to-return ratio becomes the greatest incentives. Even if one has to sit through the masturbatory seminars on China and play along at sharing sessions, it is all minor costs to pay. Some students claim to participate only to take advantage of its cheapness and make some friends. University students can discern truth from falsehood and cannot be so easily influenced(manipulated).

Coming to think of it, how do the hosting organisations know if the students are being sincere? Referencing The Stand News’s feature, “Mind Supplements for Youth”, interviewee Crystal is a frequent participant in these exchange tours. She claims(claimed) her participation in these events have absolutely zero influence on her, and that her participation saves another person from being ‘educated’. At the same time, she gets to “deplete the Liaison Office of its resources”. Of course, I believe many participants are rational, but the CCP is not stupid either. The CCP expected the participants to only seek a comfortable escape. The CCP pumps such vast amount of resources; even if it only affects a handful of people, if that can create within them a flicker of changing thoughts towards the nation, such as “China is not that bad” or “Chinese development is so good”, and allow them to catch up to pro-China people’s way of thinking, or to alleviate the anger towards China’s human rights and injustices by appealing to those who are after a good deal, would that be a phasic victory for the CCP from their perspective? This soft-handed approach gnaws subconsciously, yet it can bring more unexpected, deeper and more far-lasting impacts than the heavy-handed approach of 'National Education'.

Second, there’s no reason to be patriotic? Hong Kong has no lack of genuinely patriotic youngsters?
Out of curiosity, I clicked on some sharing sessions video clips from the exchange tours, only to realise that for some good young people, patriotism does not require any reason. Participants demonstrate a zeal for the “Motherland”. It’s hard to understand why some people can offer such flattery to the communists after so many things have happened in Hong Kong, with naked political oppression and the rule of law soon to be subsumed. They might have been through the same education system, witness the same social changes in Hong Kong and are youngsters in their early twenties. The fact of the matter is many young people live in a parallel universe’s Hong Kong. Regardless of how the CCP insensibly interferes Hong Kong’s affairs, and that the absurd continues to happen, not caring who gets disqualified, or that the co-location arrangement is in the tube, nothing is going to affect some youngsters’ loyalty and patriotism towards the ‘motherland’.
Terrance Au Yeung Kwong-wing,
an interviewee of Hong Kong Connection who decides to join DAB.

Practically speaking, there’s nothing one can do for the good youngsters who genuinely love the ‘Motherland’; on the other hand, we don’t need to worry about those who are only going to leech off a good deal being brainwashed. So is there any harm done by these ‘harmony-inducing' activities, and may even be worthy of our consideration?

I have not participated in internships in China or the "harmonious" cultural exchange tours, but many of my friends have. They have been normal so far. Perhaps there is no need for us to completely boycott these activities; on the contrary, we should understand the social, political and economic situations in China through these activities (even though we can expect whitewashing from the process). A person with international vision should not neglect China. If these activities do actually have a brainwashing element to them, participants can share their first-hand experience online, revealing the process and raising everyone’s awareness and alert towards these activities.

The Problem To Address: The Silent Youth Makes Up the Majority

Actually, why are we worrying about these brainwashing tours being effective? At its core, it’s because we lack confidence in the young people of Hong Kong. After all, those who have their own views and stance and are audacious and critical of the politics of our time are the minority, the silent and easily influenced are the majority.

It is difficult to overview the identity recognition of the younger generation of Hong Kong. From like-minded friends on Facebook, labels from the media and the various opinion polls, we pretty much get the conclusion that “Young people generally disapprove of the government.” Taking Hong Kong citizens’ “ethnic identity indices” survey as an example, generally, people understand the drop since 2008 as a response to the various social crisis in China, the influx of Mainlanders in Hong Kong, the scandals of senior government officials, the sluggish development of democratic reforms… etc. What follows is a formulaic transformation of how young people view identity concept; patriotism shifts from the normative sentiment to have to a vulgar one. 

I believe this is the new trend of identity recognition for the young generation, but does that impression align with the facts?

Indeed, more and more millennials are referring to themselves as Hongkongers instead of Chinese, a divide between Hong Kong and China have also been advocated by university students. Yet ironically, the apathetic ones still make up the majority. Referencing official surveys, young people on average do not actively exercise their civil rights. Take the age group between 20-30 years old, the population of which exceed one million. Yet the number of “young voters” is approximately 640 thousand (18-30-year-old voters fall under this category), this shows how the politically apathetic and the self-declared neutral always makes the majority. Even though it is hard to deduce the values and attitudes of these people, we can assume these people probably care about what is closest to their own interest only, yet they would not speak up against injustice or problems that do not directly affect them. They are the easiest bunch to influence and can be said to be the CCP’s target.

When we feel today that the pro-establishment camp has amassed the elderly voters with little trinkets and perks, establishing their strong voter base, would it be the case that the young generation, which we regard as equipped with civil awareness, will become the next generation of pro-establishment camp supporters? I really don’t know. Think about the Umbrella Movement in 2014, how many people changed their profile pic to a yellow ribbon to follow the trend, yet many people continue to live their ordinary lives as if nothing has happened after a year or two. They have claimed the moral ground, and exempted themselves from civic engagement. If most people go with the tide, and that one day to join the CCP becomes the norm and to oppose the government makes you the odd one out, would this law of people going with the tide apply in the opposite situation? The silent and the self-deemed apolitical/ apathetic is the most worrying bunch, because they are a force can be used at any moment. If most youngsters don’t speak of idealism, and only of tangible “benefits”, the force of opposition would have dug its own grave; what a lovely world.

Enkindle a light; they will come when there’s light (?)

Of course, we cannot neglect the new generation who are making their effort in silence, and would even gamble their future for a political ideal. To think of it optimistically, the situation cannot that bad, right? At least there are some who are willing to counter the “China factor”. Take the legal support for social movement activists, or those who are on guard for the student unions, preventing red influences from seeping into the power structure of universities. Yet in the foreseeable future, how can we capture the wandering hearts and minds of the apolitical and fickle-minded young people, and prevent them from being a bargaining chip or chess piece of the Establishment? If there are more young people who bear a sense of duty and aspiration to Hong Kong, I can very well suggest everyone exert their influence at their own posts, and support social movements by all means available. Yet when there are more and more youngsters who are patriotic/ patriotic when needed, what can civil society do? Can we still rely on the power of the media? The state controls education, but civil society and control the dissemination of information. I believe that reinforcing the public’s awareness of localness is the only way to counter the CCP’s United Front efforts. Only when the people here have a determined will to be rooted in this place, and love everything about this place, that they would stop selling out the city’s interest and betray the remaining values this city stands for.

As cliché as this may sound, there is light at the end of darkness. It has only been a couple decades, how can we despair and submit so quickly? We have to believe that with more unorthodoxy, the greater the resistance it will inspire. The CCP wishes to boil the frog slowly in tepid water, homogenising Hong Kong with a soft hand, and make young people lean towards the North, yet at the worst hour, there will be outrage. Yet this prophecy rests on the premise that we have to equip ourselves well. Because of this, we must not give up the fight on communication; we must persevere in using culture and knowledge to counter the multidimensional, seeping influences from the CCP.

I remember there was an interview with Jasper Tsang Yok-sing. He mentioned that one of Hong Kong’s biggest problem is that “since the handover, national consciousness has not been effectively constructed.” Actually, this national consciousness has already taken root in many people’s heart in many ways.  This bunch of people will not be patriotic unconditionally, but would be willing to be patriotic because of perks from the North. Yet, the same sentence can be rephrased as Hong Kong’s biggest problem is “the ineffective construction of local consciousness”. If more people are willing to put Hong Kong’s interests and values first, then we can oppose the anaconda that is China, and not have it be a desperate attempt in vain.

And then,

I am not great enough to light the path forward for future generations. I can only wish to be like Stephen Shiu Yeuk-yuen, the anti-prophet, and that none of the above will come true.

Sometimes I wonder, I despise those who bury their conscience to lick CCP’s boots and sell Hong Kong out, but would I do it myself if the opportunity presents itself? If you cannot beat them, then join them? My fear of the future lies not only with the fear of Hong Kong becoming more and more unfamiliar, but also that I would become fatalistic, or even if I do not go to such extreme as to join the CCP, it is possible that I would become a Kongformist, submitting to reality.

Hopefully, another decade will pass and we will not turn into those whom we once fulminated, despised and even hated. Do not end up as a conspirator to put the nail on Hong Kong’s coffin.