Apple Daily: Former Marine Police Arrested for Unlawful Assembly on 4 Aug

https://telegra.ph/10-Aug-Former-Marine-Police-Arrested-for-Unlawful-Assembly-on-4-Aug-08-10

Apple Daily (Translated by Hong Kong Columns - Translated) August 10, 2019

Jan Bochenski, a former marine police inspector and a retired Cathay Pacific pilot, wanted to have a walk in Sai Wan after dinner on 4 August as he lives nearby, but was subdued by the police later on. He was told that he was arrested for unlawful assembly when he was brought to the police van. He was detained for 28 hours before released.

Bochenski said around 21:00 on 4 Aug, he went to Ka On Street and found that about 30 to 40 onlookers were on the pavement, looking at the police. Some police afar were guarding the Liaison Office. Bochenski heard some disputes but did not think that to be important, so he continued to walk along Des Voeux Road West.

Suddenly, some PTU holding batons and shields approached from the other side of Ka On Street and subdued everyone, including residents in their pyjamas and South Asian delivery boy. Bochenski was asked whether he is a tourist but he said he lived nearby and just are having a walk. His reply was ignored and the police asked him to turn his phone off. He was later brought to Cheung Sha Wan Police Station. For some 40 arrestees in the same detention room, none of them is students nor wearing in black with helmets. A decoration worker, a teacher and two Indian chefs were later arranged to be detained with Bochenski.

Bochenski said the most impressive scene is there were no senior officers in the station, but all junior PCs and sergeants. Bochenski recollected that whenever there is a crisis, at least one chief inspector will be in the police station to manoeuvre, but that apparently was not the case on 4 Aug. He demanded to go to the toilet many times but was unheeded, until he said he will pee at the corner of the wall. He also demanded to call his next of kin but was also disregarded. Until rounds of complaints, he was allowed to call his wife, who is outside of Hong Kong. It was not until 5 Aug afternoon that the officers learnt Bochenski's identity as a former police officer.

After listening to the advice of the lawyer, Bochenski decided to remain silent. He said, "to be honest this makes their work easier because they know these detentions are all unnecessary; frontline officers are used for dirty work". Until around 01:00 on 6 Aug he was released but he must report presence again later this month.

Growing up in Vanuatu, Bochenski lived in Australia and the UK. His first job is to join the police force in Hong Kong and become an inspector for four years. His upbringing let him know that being a policeman in a colony must not upset the residents there.

He also mentioned that during the detention, some young officers knew that he was a policeman and had a chat with him. Bochenski was asked about his views on the current situation and he stressed the importance of trust between the police and the people - this was also the biggest challenge before 1997. Bochenski said the Royal Hong Kong Police Force spent years to build a mutual trust with the people, but now the trust has been completely eroded, and the government does not find it problematic.

Bochenski said if the government is willing to set up a commission of inquiry (COI), the mutual trust between the police and the people may be rebuilt, but the key is that both parties are willing to contribute. It has been 4 decades since Bochenski joined the force, and he still felt quite proud of being a policeman. He kept contact with his former colleagues and this year they will fly to Hong Kong to celebrate the 40th anniversary since being policemen. Although being arrested arbitrarily, his pride remains. During the interview, Bochenski repeated that the police should do their job right and cannot make arbitrary arrests.

"Whenever you are in a uniform, you should do things right and proper, otherwise you are not doing your job right, isn't it?" said Bochenski.

Chinese version (Original):

https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20190809/59916041

[HK's First Interpreter] Hong Kong A Step Closer to Use of Chinese in Public Matter

香港政府新聞公報

一九七二年四月廿八日 星期五

公事上使用中文又邁進一步
即時傳譯主任 由英抵港履新

為推行公事上使用中文於新近所聘任的即時傳譯主任鄭仰平，現已由英國抵港，負責有關在立法及市政兩局公開會議席上提供即時傳譯服務的事宜。

在此等會議席上提供即時傳譯服務，乃為公事上使用中文研究委員會向政府提交的第一份報告內所建議。隨著即時傳譯主任的抵港履新，此項建議的實施又有進一步的進展。

鄭氏現已分別會見民政司署中文監察專員黃劍琴，布政司署及市政局人員，商討有關他的工作問題。

鄭氏在今後數月內的工作，主要將為擬定傳譯的程序，以及給予其他即時傳譯員嚴格的訓練，此等傳譯員的選錄，為根據於一九七一年香港訪問的英國專家披里的意見，他們在受訓之後，將協助鄭氏提供所需的即時傳譯服務。

鄭氏於香港出生，已婚，有四名子女，早年在上海及廣州接受教育，過去曾在香港電台、印度電台及英國廣播電台服務。

政府發言人指出，有關在立法及市政兩局為提供即時傳譯服務而裝設的工作櫃枱，其工程幾已接近完成，所需的其他設備亦已訂購，預料可於本年七月間運抵本港。

Language barrier on way out at council meetings

SCMP, 29 April 1972

Both the Chinese and English speaking public will soon attend Legislative Council and Urban Council meetings without any language barrier.

The date, next August, was set yesterday by Government's newly-appointed Chief Interpreter, Mr Y. P. Cheng, who arrived from England last Friday.

Mr Cheng, a former translator and broadcaster with the BBC in London, and his three-man team will provide simultaneous interpretations at Legco and Urbco meetings.

In an interview yesterday at the Colonial Secretariat, Mr Cheng admitted the job was a “new challenge for me.” He said he had no past experience in this field.

His first task, he said, would be to compile a standard glossary of official terms comprising mainly names and titles in both languages.

He will also train the other interpreters. They were selected on the advice of Mr A. T. Pilley during his visit last year. He will undergo an extensive familiarisation programme of various Government departments and will work closely with the Commissioner for Chinese Language, Mr Christopher Wong.

“In future, the Legislative Council and Urban Council can speak in either Chinese or English, We will do the translation, he explained. Mr Cheng said Cantonese would be used in Chinese interpretations. But we are not ruling out Mandarin, “ he added.

He estimated that the translation speed would be approximately three-quarters of a sentence behind the speakers.

Mr Cheng said the sound equipment was expected to arrive some time in July. Mr Cheng was born in Hongkong and educated in Shanghai and Canton, He has more than 10 years of experience with Radio Hongkong, All India Radio and the BBC.

Bullets aimed at heads, fire first & then disperse - Review of Police's new strategy on 12 June

Bullets aimed at heads, fire first & then disperse - Review of Police's new strategy on 12 June

Translated by HKCT, written by Kwan Chun-hoi
Original: Kwan Chun-hoi's Medium 

"What a pleasure to see that! I thought we only fired during training. That’s real! There it is! (laughs) And I would not allow a “2.0” version to happen." In a video recorded within the police force as obtained by Apple Daily, a police officer seemed to be proud of firing, who "will not allow Umbrella Movement 2.0 to happen", talked with a sense of mission. 

Police and members of the public hold opposite views on firing. I stayed at the scene for 8 hours (10 am-6 pm) on 12 June and could give an analysis on the tactics employed by the Police in dealing with mass movement which was conspicuously different from the recent years. But the first question to be asked, both from the Hongkongers and Police, why firing came first? 

Police were facing the same situation as in the umbrella movement that 5,000 police officers were way less than tens of thousands of Hongkongers. From 3:30pm to 4pm, the force employed a baiting tactic. Front line police officers purposely did not wear gas masks, which projected an illusion of them being slack. Two inspectors in white uniform were assigned in each spot. The message of "no clearance today" was also disseminated to the lawmakers, which further soothed the tension. When protesters were lured into the LegCo Complex, tons of tear gas were fired. Flooded rapidly were special tactical squads hidden inside the Complex, as well as masked police officers with waving batons. 

To fire first and then disperse was the deployment of police and the main direction used to clear the scene on 12 June. What's more, firing (such as rubber bullets and bean bag rounds) was aimed at heads, while tear gas canisters were hurled on bodies. 

Fire first and then disperse -- The followings were my observation near the LegCo public protest area from 3pm to 4pm: 

Protest at midday on 12 June was peaceful. Police had once said that there was no plan to "clear the scene for the time being". Some secondary school students in uniform, office ladies and white-collar workers from Central arrived at the scene to show support to the protest. There were church members lined up in front of the police officers singing hymns incessantly. No violence was foreseen. 

The calm ambience at 3pm in the public protest area became tense at near 4pm, when it was learnt that clashes started on Tim Mei Avenue. Police received news at 4pm that protesters were planning to occupy the LegCo. 

Protesters charged the Police cordon line. Without any warning and under the instruction from an inspector, the police fired bean bag rounds at protesters by an officer holding a Remington shotgun. During the clashes, there were protesters hurling a few pieces of bricks, around two to three. The inspector picked up the bricks and roared at the protesters, "Are you hurling bricks? Are you hurling bricks?" From what I saw at the scene, there were not many bricks. The shout of "Are you hurling bricks?" from police was more an order to their colleagues for the sake of recording rather than a warning to the protesters. Would it be an indication of "shoot once hurled"? 

Another angle at the public protest area: Police officers rushed out to strike protesters

Police fired the first tear gas when officers without gas masks were forced to back off to the corner. Then the riot squads lurked inside the Legco Building flocked in to disperse the crowd by batons. Former Commissioner of Police TSANG Wai-hung had once explained that the use of tear gas was for dispersing the crowd, but the operation this time was obviously to fire first and disperse afterwards. This is completely different from either the operation conducted during the Umbrella Movement in 2014 that "Disperse the crowd first" or the common ways used internationally. 

Back to 1989 Govt prevents treachery 

I believed that "This is an ORDER" to take a group photo of the police officers next to the patrol car before the operation. The photo could be sent within police WhatsApp groups for showing their loyalty, recognising their faces and implementing stringently the accountability system, in case "treacherous" officers refused to shoot at the scene. With the headshot taken, any uncooperative officers can be tried publicly within Police. I witnessed the first shot at the public protest area. 

The inspector made an order to the police officer, who was holding a gun and without a mask, next to his ear. Once the first shot was fired, other police officers would be relieved of a burden and become obedient soldiers who can forget the criminal responsibility of shooting at people's heads. That was why police officers were boasting that they would not allow a second umbrella movement as they have obviously been brain-washed. I believe that even Commissioner Stephen LO Wai-chung was well aware that once there were over 30,000 to 50,000 people around the LegCo, and the Police could only resort to weapons and tear gas for clearance. 

In 1989, Xu Qinxian, the army commander of the Beijing 38th Group Army, applied for leave. Sympathizing the citizens, the troops could not clear the scene when they entered the city. DENG Xiaoping worried the morale of the troops and therefore cut off their communications. Soldiers could only wait for instructions at the camps. In 2019, rumours saying that there are opposing voices to the "Fugitive Extradition Bill" at the senior level within the Government. The Government Headquarters was closed for two days. Police officers successively quit from friend WhatsApp groups and fired feverishly in the city. The police force is now out of control. Pro-Beijing camp went against the will of a million of people by keeping silent and trying their very best to attend the meeting. ExCo member Bernard Chan even implied the deployment of the People's Liberation Army, which was however ultimately denied by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Protesters were clad in white and then black, finally turned into red. Say hello to 1989. 

[4 June 2019] Owan Li: Giving Up Is Our Heaviest Price to Pay

Giving Up Is Our Heaviest Price to Pay

By Owan Li, Council Member (April 2018-April 2020) of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University [Social Policy and Administration, Year 3]

in front of Hong Kong Cultural Centre on 4 June 2019

各位在場朋友大家好。

「以銅為鏡，可以正衣冠；以古為鏡，可以知興替；以人為鏡，可以明得失。」今日我們一同來到尖沙咀一同紀念三十年前在不遠的他方，我們可以清晰地看到極權政府的暴行。所以今日的六四悼念集會，除了紀錄當日猝然而逝的往生者以外，亦令我們一眾港人明白到歷史教會我們的事情。學習歷史，除了可以增廣見聞，也可以教曉我們不要重蹈覆轍，今日在網路上回顧這些年來的紀錄片和照片，可見極權政府對付平民百姓的手段殘暴不仁、令人扼腕。因此，回望這段歷史，我們必需要時刻警惕，極權政府正在我們的鄰近之處蠢蠢欲動、張牙舞爪。

「香港人這個身份，在這幾年特別艱難，但我相信我們每一位，都有為這個地方感到自豪，因為我們真的很喜歡這個地方，我作為香港人的一份子，對於香港日漸沉淪，慢慢不再是我們熟悉的地方，除了嘆息，亦只有難過。我選擇了在不同的身份上，都要捍衛香港人這個身份，作為今日這一代的學生領袖，彷如與三十年前蒙難的往生者身影重疊。慶幸今天我仍活在香港，雖然不致於生命受到威脅，但一九九七年主權移交以來，香港人的正常生活早已面目全非。雖然在理大民主牆事年當中，我需要履行120小時社會服務令，但事實上在香港不同的角落，早已有不同的香港人身陷囹圇成為年輕世代的政治犯，相比之下120小時的社會服務令簡直微不足道，更遑論當日死傷無數的犧牲者，魂魄早就刻在我們在場每一個人的腦海之中。歷史的教晦，就是要我們面對極權的統治，除了要保留實力、小心應對之外，亦要時刻防範不要鬆懈。

歷史，是勝利者編寫時代輝煌見證的書目。今年《環球時報》指出六四「事件」是已褪色的歷史事件，放下它有助國家走出陰影避免分歧，幫助所有中國人面對未來、對動亂可以免疫。此等評論只為抹黑歷史、愚弄群眾。

但我希望在場各位，不要忘記歷史給過我們沉痛與淚水帶來血的教訓，因為只有銘記歷史，我們才能發創未來。今日的香港，有人說要忘記過去，我對此不敢苟同，因為學習歷史的意義，除了要令我們知道以前的事件之外，亦可以從過去的大小事上找到了世界行走的軌跡，在座每一位都明白到只有認識到極權政府的過去、面對殺人政權的暴行，更有效可以為我們疏理好未來鬥智鬥力的籌碼，必需要步步為營，他日終究都會是我們在場各位自主未來。

有人認為，明知不可為而為之，是一種極致的無知，但是歷史沒有如果、只有教訓，若然我們能夠保留實力，他日定能勇者無懼。只要我們永不放棄，勝利定當站在我們一方。

今日六月四日，三十年過去了，中共政權在本質從來沒有絲毫的改變。今日的香港更是變本加厲，如今逃犯條例修訂案猶如每個港人頸邊的利刃，吾等眾人活在人心惶惶的恐懼當中。

放棄，才是我們的最大代價。

雖然未來的日子，早就可以預見我們的生活將會遇上更大的艱難。但希望在這裡希望鼓勵各位，只要有我們、這裡才是我們的香港。

各位，無論如何都要堅持。

因為我們都是香港人。

[Li's speech in English; edited for grammatical reasons; explanations in italic]

Good evening everybody.

Learning from history is about learning the lesson of our life in our modern society. Today, we are coming to Tsim Sha Tsui, commemorating 30 years ago - it's not quite far away - in Beijing, Tian'anmen Square. We can clearly find that the government of the Communist Party in China already showed the dictatorship to the citizens. It's actually - today's event - not only have to recall the dead victims in China, we also learn the history, learn the lesson of today's Hong Kong. We should have the self-determination of our destiny, and also we should learn the lesson from history.

Today, in Hong Kong, the government already showed us the dominance, the hegemony - not only because of the sovereignty problem but also they do not treasure Hong Kong people. Today, in Hong Kong, the identity of Hong Kong people is extremely difficult. To uphold the identity of Hong Kong people, we should be proud of it. Because this identity is unique. No one can replace [us].

However, we can see that every day in Hong Kong, we have sad news. Teenagers, or our next generation, have no hope - they even committed suicide. They think that they cannot find their future. However, when we learn from history, we can find that the Communist Party in China already showed us - when we escape, they will do more. We are now living in danger. As a student leader in Hong Kong, and I am still the student council member of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, although the punishment [received by Li regarding his protest against the Polytechnic's decision to forbid the students using the democracy wall at campus] is 120 hours of community service order, compared to that, 30 years ago, they sacrificed their lives, their destiny, their future. Compared to that, it [Li's punishment] seems to be nothing.

History is written by winners instead of losers. So, we have to uphold the identity of Hong Kong people. We have to be our own winner. We never forget, we never forgive.

Last but not least, in the future, it will be predicted that our lives, society, the community will encounter more difficulties. I would like to express that we never give up, because, in the world, we are Hong Kong people. Only we are Hong Kong people to uphold Hong Kong's rights. Thank you.

[4 June 2019] Joey Siu: Unite regardless of generation and protest on 9 June

Unite regardless of generation and protest on 9 June

By Joey Siu, Acting External Vice President of Provisional Executive Committee of the City University of Hong Kong Students' Union
in front of Hong Kong Cultural Centre on 4 June 2019

大家好，我係香港城市大學學生會臨時行政委員會署理外務副會長邵嵐。

三十年前嘅北京，一眾中國學生主導發起咗要求中共政府正視社會問題，建設民主中國嘅八九民運。然而，數以萬計嘅學生對民主自由嘅渴求不但得唔到政府嘅重視，更加換嚟咗6月4日凌晨嘅屠城慘劇。冰冷嘅坦克車徹底粉碎咗莘莘學子對民主自由，對公義嘅希望。

三十年後嘅香港，中共政權一次又一次肆意妄為咁想摧毀香港嘅核心價值。由否定梁天琦參選資格到褫奪四位民選議員議席，人大釋法、到今日，中共試圖藉修訂逃犯條例徹底摧毀香港嘅法治，將我地嘅家園變成中共政權下嘅一個城市。

關於六四，近年嚟經常聽到老一輩批評年輕人唔出席支聯會舉辦嘅六四燭光晚會。作為一個香港人，我都選擇唔出席支聯會嘅燭光晚會，建設民主中國並非一眾生於斯，長於斯嘅香港人要承擔嘅責任。即使拋開身份認同而言，痴心妄想咁要求一個如此血腥嘅政權去平反三十年前嘅過失，還人民民主自由更加係天方夜譚。

但係，我仍然選擇悼念六四。作為一個學生，我希望藉悼念六四中犧牲嘅學生，時刻警醒自己，香港而家面對緊嘅，係一個幾咁橫蠻嘅政權。作為一個學生領袖，我希望藉悼念六四話比更多人聽，特別係已經唔可以再從課本上完整咁了解六四事件，更年輕嘅一代知，究竟中共有幾殘暴不仁。

五十年大限過去未夠一半，但中共已經迫不及待赤化香港，香港人一直引以為傲嘅法治精神，自由民主可謂經已蕩然無存；而家，就連最基本嘅集會自由，言論自由都岌岌可危。

港共強推送中惡法，我唔知道我哋下年仲可唔可以喺同一地方悼念六四。喺德國流亡嘅黃台仰為紐約時報撰文時話「送中惡法通過，香港將會死亡」。香港危急存亡之際，我哋更加要銘記歷史比我哋嘅教訓，無論老一輩定係年輕一代都應該放低成見，團結反抗惡法。

香港人，6月9號，我哋維園見。

Hello everyone, I am Joey Siu, the Acting External Vice President of Provisional Executive Committee of the City University of Hong Kong Students' Union.

So, first I have to apologize for not having an English version of my speech. But what I want to say is, we all should remember the June 4th movement. We all should remember how cruel can the Chinese government be. No one can save us - only we Hongkongers can save ourselves. As a Hongkonger, as a student, as a student leader, I am willing to voice out for my country, for my homeland. So, 9 June, let's meet at Victoria Park, thank you.

------

(The following is the translation of her Cantonese speech.)

Hello everyone, I am Joey Siu, the Acting External Vice President of Provisional Executive Committee of the City University of Hong Kong Students' Union.

Three decades ago, in Beijing, lots of Chinese students had led the movement in 1989, demanding the CCP government to face squarely to the problems in society and to build a democratic China. Yet, the desire for democracy and freedom by tens of thousands of students was neglected by the government and ended up in a tragedic slaughter in the early hours on 4 June 1989. Cold tanks completely crushed students' hope for democracy, freedom and justice.

Three decades later, in Hong Kong, the CCP regime has time and again showed its fervent desire to destroy the core values of Hong Kong. From disqualifying Edward Leung's candidacy to disqualifying the seats of four elected lawmakers, from NPCSC's Basic Law interpretation to what is happening now - utterly tarnishing the rule of law in Hong Kong by trying to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO). They want our homeland to become a city under the CCP regime.

In recent years, we can often hear criticisms from people of the older generation about youngsters not attending the candlelight vigil in Victoria Park. As a Hongkonger, I choose not to attend the one in Victoria Park by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. To build a democratic China is not a responsibility on the shoulders of Hongkongers, who are born and bred here. Putting aside identity issue - fantasizing a brutal regime to vindicate the mistake it made three decades ago and allow democracy and freedom is simply ridiculous.

Still, I choose to commemorate June 4th. As a student, I hope to alert myself the barbarism of the regime Hong Kong is now facing by remembering those sacrificed students in Beijing. As a student leader, I hope to tell more people - especially the younger generation who can no longer learn about the incident completely from textbooks - how brutal the CCP is.

Half of the deadline of "unchanged 50 years" has passed, yet the CCP has an urge to turn Hong Kong red. The rule of law, which Hongkongers are proud of, as well as freedom and democracy, can be described as "it's over". And now, the freedom of assembly - the most fundamental right - is in jeopardy.

The CCP wants to steamroller the draconian FOO amendment. I do not know whether we can commemorate June 4th at the same place next year. Ray Wong, now in exile in Germany, wrote on New York Times that if the FOO amendment is passed, Hong Kong will be dead. At this critical moment of Hong Kong, we should remember the lessons from history. Regardless of older or younger generation, we should put our differences aside and unite to oppose this draconian law.

Hongkongers, let's meet at Victoria Park on 9 June.

PRC Scholar's New Idea: "GD-HK-Macau Greater Bay Special Legal Cooperation Area"

PRC Scholar's New Idea: "Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Special Legal Cooperation Area"

Translated by Karen L., edited by Ben Kong, written by Raymond Wan 
Original: https://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E8%A7%80%E9%BB%9E/article/20190218/s00012/1550427314563/%E5%B0%B9%E7%91%9E%E9%BA%9F-%E5%85%A7%E5%9C%B0%E7%9A%84%E5%A4%A7%E7%81%A3%E5%8D%80%E6%96%B0%E5%80%A1%E8%AD%B0-%E8%A8%AD%E3%80%8C%E7%B2%B5%E6%B8%AF%E6%BE%B3%E5%A4%A7%E7%81%A3%E6%B3%95%E6%B2%BB%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5%E5%90%88%E4%BD%9C%E5%8D%80%E3%80%8D 

The “Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Special Legal Cooperation Area” may be unheard of for many Hongkongers, or scholars even. Yet it represents “systematic innovation” in the architecture of GBA development. Li Lin (李林), Director of the Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, published an article named “Legal implications of the Greater Bay Area” in January at China Review in China, saying that an iconoclastic legal platform where the strategic partnership upholds the ideal of mind liberation is required to solve the fundamental problems arising from systematic differences within the GBA.

The preliminary idea of GBA is that “the consisted cities transfer part of the power of legislation, enforcement and judiciary to help stipulate a set of conjoint ordinances and policies under ‘One Country, One System’ so that the future development of different aspects there, economy, finance, talents, technology, intellectual property and environmental protection, for instance, can go on without interruption or conflicts”.

Li suggested that equal status should be given to Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macau as a democratic move, and that the central government’s guidance will assist the leaders to reach consensus. Additionally, a collective effort is demanded of the cities to form a legislative committee to cope with the issues of law. Li added that the ordinances and policies should be based on several principles to smoothen the process: territorial jurisdiction comes before nationality jurisdiction; what is beneficial to the execution of civil law is given priority; issues associated with the sovereignty, national defense and diplomacy are not to be interfered with; Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macau are obligated to provide mutual aid to one another in terms of law enforcement.

To-do List for the Next Five Years

Li also regarded the current situation as too urgent for long term solutions, pinpointing that overcoming every possible systematic obstacles there will take ages, while the development of GBA is so imminent that it cannot wait for decades. Therefore he proposed to act practically, to adapt with a set of temporary rules within the next five years, and continue from there.

First and foremost, it is creating an entry point of which the circumstance of GBA can be realized. The three-pronged solution includes the considerations of GBA legislation, executive agreement and national policies. To my understanding, the precedent has been set through the juxtaposed border control over the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail Hong Kong Section. Hong Kong’s legal sector castigated the operation which mainland officers would be given authority to enforce mainland law in Hong Kong, as it apparently points to the violation of the Basic Law. In that case, Beijing bypassed the legal complications in the midst of controversy, letting the government of Guangdong Province and Hong Kong government arrange customs and immigration details for themselves, and subsequently approving the scheme as being in accordance with the Basic Law. There, very conveniently, through legislation, can certain practices be implemented in Hong Kong.

Secondly, Li indicated that study on how to legislate needs to be taken. Specifically, the central government legislation, the local legislation and the cooperative legislation, should be put forward.

For the central government’s part, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall legalize all major policies and problems therein and authorize particular provisions based on the Basic Law to meet any urgent need for the institution of GBA, while in the power of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, dedicated executive stipulations for GBA items (e.g. attracting talents, funds allocation, mobility, employment and industrial development) can be set in motion.

As in the local legislation, it is both suitable for Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macau to adopt a cooperative legislative procedure or a separate one. “In the present phase,” Li added, “if cooperative legislation is too far from being inclusive; separate legislative procedures can be used instead, provided that the timing and the content are in sync, and that the procedures are simplified as much as possible.”

Thirdly, dispute resolution (on economy, civil matters, intellectual property and so forth) is reckoned as one of the measures to be taken into account. Under the long-running constitutions, all three districts have sufficient experiences on criminal procedure and administrative litigation. A few adjustments made according to the GBA condition can be expected to be rather straightforward, and the rest can be kept for the time being. To be exact, it should adhere to “three propositions”—utilize the civil, administrative and joint mediation to the full; reinforce the notarization of the legal documents and the mechanism for civil and commercial arbitration; leaving court litigation as the last resort.

“One Country, Two Systems” Fading and Failing

Li’s article is the continuation of “The Legislation Issues of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area”, co-written by Zhang Liang, the Associate Dean of School of Law, Sun Yat-sen University and Li Dong-ming, a PhD student at the said university. The article advised in short what a cooperative legislation would help in easing the potential difficulties, and that it denied the existence of autonomy in GBA as it is a state project initiated by Beijing.

These mainland scholars’ statements provide legitimate ground for the worries of a deteriorated “One Country, Two Systems”. For one thing, the “law” mentioned here and there to make way for GBA appears more of a broad definition of policy, planning, agreement and regulation combined. It naturally makes people wonder if there’s an appeal mechanism to the execution of the “law”. For another, the powers to be transferred by the special administrative regions for certain policies is yet to be defined. It raised doubts over the promised high degree of autonomy come what may. And how would the foreign funds, foreign governments and foreigners working in Hong Kong evaluate the city’s status as an international city/ international financial centre after that?

Since the Opening of China, southern China and Hong Kong have luxuriated in the complementary advantages brought by market mechanism; however, the latest plan of development concentrates so much on strengthening the roles of the central government and the regional governments. The Public’s input is ruled out in most of the process (particularly the parts related to Hong Kong’s rule of law and the citizens’ quality of life). We shall demand public consultation to be restored as it has been the pillar in our policy formulation so that the credibility of any policy is not undermined.

Straight Talk with Kurt Tong (26.2.2019) - Full Transcript

Straight Talk with Kurt Tong (26.2.2019) - Full Transcript

http://news.tvb.com/programmes/straighttalk/5c75430de6038315322124ee

MC: Hello I’m Michael Chugani and this is Straight Talk. With me today is the US Consul General, Mr Kurt Tong. Thank you very much. Now, Mr Consul General, you were here about a year ago. 

KT: About a year ago, yes. Thanks, Michael.

MC: In that year, a lot has happened. Since you last came, we’ve had the trade war, we’ve got legislative councillors who were disqualified, we’ve got a national anthem law and we have a congressional report that said we should reassess the Hong Kong Policy Act. I’m going to start off with the trade war because just yesterday President Donald Trump said okay, negotiations have gone well and he’s going to delay the tariffs for a while. Now, Mr Consul General, a lot of people say, critics say that the trade war was not necessary, and it was America’s way to try and suppress the rise of China. Would you say that was true?

KT: Well, thanks Michael and thank you for having me again this year. It’s been...I enjoyed...it’s a really good opportunity to have some dialogue. The situation with the ongoing trade negotiations, I would characterize it as “we’ve entered a second overtime”. We’ve had a brief first overtime for about two days and then the president, as you said, has indicated that he’s going to postpone raising US tariffs for a period of time while we have future negotiations. I think the US continues to have high expectations for these talks. There's a lot of very important structural issues that we’re now substantively engaged on. We have a clear agenda and there is a reason to think that we can actually have a significant breakthrough in improving the nature of the US-China economic relationships, which the US as you know had a lot of points of dissatisfaction with. So, I’m hopeful that these negotiations would go well and that is pretty much the intentions of the talks...the tariffs you know, are an action-forcing event. They focus the mind and they help China understand to the degree of which the US really consider these problems that are buildup in the nature of the US-China economic relationship to be very serious.

MC: Was it necessary? Because people say that it’s hurt both the US and it’s hurt China, it definitely has hurt Hong Kong, and that it could’ve been settled without tariffs, and that by imposing these tariffs, President Trump is trying to, I asked, again to suppress the rise of China.

KT: That’s clearly not the case. We’re not trying to suppress the rise of China, we’re trying to interest China and create incentive for China to focus on significant problems that are...

MC: Have they been playing unfair?

KT: Who?

MC: China. In trade.

KT: Yes. Absolutely. It’s been an unfair...

MC: In areas like technology transfer, forced technology transfer.

KT: Unfair and non-reciprocal on trading relationship in the way it’s been structured, and particularly, as with respect to technology and investment. So, we focus the mind through tariffs and have had negotiations. This is not uncommon in global commerce or trade negotiations. 

MC: Sure, now the thing is that I’m going to link that with the Huawei issue, with the arrest of a senior Huawei official. 

KT: Well, that’s the wrong thing to do, because they’re not linked.

MC: OK, they are not linked. But you know, it’s been said that the two are separate. I understand that but people, critics look at it as one whole thing. You’ve got the trade war, you’ve got the arrest of the Huawei official and then you’ve got the US trying to stop Huawei into dominating 5G. All these things combined…

KT: Well, critic... 

MC: ...will give people an impression that they’re trying to suppress the rise of China.

KT: Right, and those people, those critics are incorrect. There's no linkage between the Huawei technology issue, the specific case against Mrs Meng [sic] or the ongoing bilateral trade negotiations. These are separate things and that’s the way the real world works. Now, there’s a talking point that is being issued by the Chinese side that the United States is interested in containing or suppressing China.

MC: Right.

KT: That is a talking point also intended to create leverage and motivate people to…

MC: You’re not trying to do that? You’re not trying to do that? The US is not trying to do that?

KT: That’s right. We’re trying to resolve specific problems in specific ways using specific levers. When someone breaks the law, you have a law enforcement action. When there’s a technological risk, that will be considered debated and as you seen there's been a lot of countries considering the right way to deal with the risk mitigation, with respect to technologies coming out, particularly 5G. And in trade area, trade investment area, you have a negotiation. If you need to create leverage in order to have that negotiation, you create leverage and have a negotiation. This is how the real world works.

MC: Okay, I’m going to bring the issue back to Hong Kong now because we’re in Hong Kong and I think one of the things that concerns a lot of Hong Kong people, especially businesses in Hong Kong. Is that congressional report that came out that said that because they see Hong Kong’s autonomy is diminishing, perhaps it’s time to reassess to giving Hong Kong a special customs status, right? Now, you have said, Mr Consul General, that they’re not going to take...the US is not going to take back the Hong Kong Relations Act for the time being, is that right?

KT: So, the most important point to make is...and you’ve said all the way from trade negotiations to the Hong Kong Policy Act, there’s no relationship between those issues as well. 

MC: Yes, of course. It’s a separate issue.

KT: It’s entirely separate issues and the Hong Kong Policy Act is a piece of US legislation that allows the United States to treat Hong Kong differently than it treats the rest of China for purpose of the US law. That will continue as long as Hong Kong continues to be substantively autonomous in those various areas of US laws. So, I think...again it’s a much more legalistic, methodical, scientific conversation that is often portrayed. So...I think that we will issue another report again soon, coming out of the State Department, the consulate assisted in the creation of that. It will report the reality of Hong Kong…

MC: What is the reality, Mr Consul General?

KT: ...situation and autonomy. The reality is that Hong Kong continues in many ways, in many areas to enjoy a high degree of autonomy but there are issues on areas for concern, in particular this last year 2018 was not a particular good year for Hong Kong’s autonomy. There were signs for increasing pressure put on Hong Kong’s political space and some unfortunate events have happened in 2018 which created a sense that Hong Kong may be losing some of that grip on autonomy. So, I think the report is likely to reflect that fact but also will be fair in assessing the overall balance of the pros and cons with respect to autonomy. 

MC: I’m going to try and pin you down on that. Now, the last time you were here, you said that the emphasis seems to be less on autonomy and more on “One Country”. That’s what you said last time. Now, you’re saying a new report is coming out…

KT: It’s required by Congress…

MC: Sure, right. And things have happened, unfortunate things. I think what you meant was that you’ve had candidates being disqualified to run in elections, you’ve had a foreign journalist expelled for hosting a talk at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club by a pro-independence party. Then you’ve got people in Hong Kong saying free speech has limits, you cannot even talk about independence. You, when you were last here, you said, free speech is free speech, right? And as long as it’s peaceful, it should be allowed, right? Now, you are now saying that the new report, as required by law, will come out soon, and it will reflect these things. How strongly will it reflect these things that the autonomy is now under threat?

KT: Well, the report is yet to be issued. You know, I don’t want to lessen your enthusiasm for actually reading it when it comes out. But the point that matters is that I think there’s been a trend in the last few years and in 2018 in particular of emphasis on “One Country” in ways that impinged on the realization on the full benefits of “Two Systems”, and the autonomy, the high degree of autonomy that Hong Kong is supposed to enjoy under the Basic Law.

So the thing that concerns me is that concern from the mainland side about politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong politics is different than mainland politics and that’s… I understand that it’s uncomfortable for the mainland. But that kind of pressure that’s being applied can impact the political sphere in Hong Kong in a narrowing political space, that a deeper concern for US interests is that it could actually, over time, start to influence the economic spheres as well. And really this year, we’re experiencing… we’ve enjoyed the 175th anniversary of our consulate, we’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on what our consulate is about, what the US presence is about in Hong Kong? When you really dig into it, a lot of it is about economic ties, trade, investments and business. And if that political atmosphere changes to a sufficient extent, it ends up hurting the business environment that would be very problematic I think for everyone involved, for the United States, for China, for Hong Kong people certainly and even for the region.

MC: Okay. Quick break. See you soon.

/////

MC: Thanks for staying with us. This is Straight Talk. With me is Mr Kurt Tong, he is the Consul General of the US. Now, Mr Tong, before the break, we talked about the US Policy Act, I think that’s one thing that concerns a lot of people in Hong Kong. And you did say that what concerns the US is that, as people see autonomy eroding, and more focus being put on “One Country”, rather than “Two Systems”, it could then spill to affecting business ties, the business atmosphere, and that concerns the US because you have got a lot of companies in Hong Kong that do business here, right?

KT: Yes. A huge presence.

MC: Exactly. Now, you know last year when you are here, you did say and I will say it again that you felt that emphasis is now more on “One Country” than “Two Systems”, and autonomy is eroding. A new report is coming out again, and I’m sure, even though you won’t tell me what it is, it is still being done, I don’t think that it will say “everything is fine”. I am sure it will say that “things are not fine”, right? Now, how much worse does it need to get before the US congress says “okay, now we must take a serious look at whether we should give Hong Kong special status”.

KT: So, there is no autonomy meter, right? And it’s not…

MC: That I do know, but Mr Consul General, you have said that…

KT: Let me…

MC: Okay.

KT: It’s not… so my point being that it is not a black or white question. And the report and what not will be very careful to be fact-based, to be careful and assessments, and make sure that we get our stories straight. The Hong Kong Policy Act provides a legal framework for a variety of activities and cooperation, application of US law, to the relationship between the United States and Hong Kong. The likely way that things will happen going forward is that there will be, some scrutiny of the various aspects of implementation of that law. And if there is autonomy in those areas of application, then it will continue just fine. And I expect that mostly the case in most areas going forward. In a specific area, bilateral activity, like say law enforcement cooperation, things are going great, Hong Kong is showing a high degree of autonomy, Hong Kong is acting like a “Two Systems” special place, then the US will continue to treat it as such.

MC: But what areas do you feel that autonomy is eroding? 

KT: Well, in the biggest implication, I think it’s in the political sphere again, that political activities have been constrained, you talked about some of the negative events with respect to the freedom of expression, over the past year…

MC: Will those things be…

KT: And that’s the concern. So that is the general background, and then when you consider the Hong Kong Policy Act and US-Hong Kong cooperation, in some ways it's more specific to various activities.

MC: Do you expect, I know this is like you don't know yet, but do you expect that when the report comes out, it will be more critical than the one before?

KT: Well, I think, given what I have told you about our assessment of the previous year, I think that could be the case, yes.

MC: It would be more critical than the one… because the one before drew a very angry response from Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive, right? So, you said the new one coming out will be even worse? 

KT: It’s an uncomfortable thing for one government to make a report about the activities of another government.

MC: Sure.

KT: Or either the Hong Kong government or the mainland government. That’s an uncomfortable thing, people sometimes react to that. I get it, we are required by law because of these special circumstances of “One Country, Two Systems”. And being allowed under US law to apply these special positive aspects of a unique relationship.

MC: Well, I’ll ask you…

KT: We are required to report on it, and we will report on it, and people might not like what we say, but we…

MC: But it’s the US law, so you report on it, right? Now, I am going to ask you one more question, and then I will move on. Now, you think the report will be worse than the one, well, more critical than the one last year, right? Okay, fine. Now, can I assume that it will be more critical because in that year, you have had candidates being disqualified, you have had a journalist being expelled, you have had a political party being banned, and then the insistence that you cannot even talk peacefully about independence, if you do you will no longer be able to run for elected office again. Are these the things that will make the report more critical? 

KT: You have cited some important examples of what we would consider negative trends in autonomy in Hong Kong’s political space.

MC: So those were the issues that will make the report more critical? 

KT: Again, I hope you look forward to reading it.

MC: But then the point will not be reached. In your opinion, as Consul General, the point will not be reached for the Congress to say “we are going to take away the Policy Act”?

KT: Well, the act will require another act of Congress to change, and I haven’t seen anyone suggest that.

MC: Alright, okay. Now, I am going to move on. We have got another thing here now that a lot of controversies, an extradition proposal from the government, stemming from an alleged murder case in Taiwan, involving a Hong Kong person.

KT: Right.

MC: Now, you know, the funny thing is a lot of people in Hong Kong, politicians saying “fine, let’s have one with Taiwan”, but they’re worried about having one with mainland China, right? And the reason being that if you allow that, then Beijing can demand to have this or that person to be extradited for political reasons, right? Now, the US and China, you do have a treaty, right, the US and China, you have a…

KT: No.

MC: You do have one.

KT: With Hong Kong.

MC: With Hong Kong? Not with… I am sorry, yes. You have one with Hong Kong, but not with mainland.

KT: Because of the Hong Kong Policy Act…

MC: Exactly, right.

KT: and “One Country, Two Systems”.

MC: And that came about 20 something years ago with Hong Kong, right? 

KT: We had one predating the handover, but that agreement is remained enforced, again because of the Hong Kong Policy Act allowing us to do that.

MC: So, are you worried that you have one with Hong Kong, and then if Hong Kong said “could you please extradite this person to Hong Kong?”, is the US worried that if Hong Kong has one now with mainland China, then that person upon arriving in Hong Kong, the Chinese government can say “we want that person over there”. Does that worry you?

KT: Well, here is the thing, I am going to give you a careful answer on this, I think the details in this kind of thing really matter, and so I am not prejudging the likely outcome of Hong Kong’s deliberation about what to do with respect to fugitive transfer, vis-a-vis mainland, vis-a-vis Taiwan, and also I don’t want to prejudge what the US reaction would be, because it really depends upon the details and how these things are implemented, in terms of the carve-outs protection for individuals, and with respect to possible fugitive transfer or extradition. So, we will just have to wait and see. There is a possibility that if it is structured in certain ways, then that could have some impact on the implementation of our bilateral arrangement between the United States and Hong Kong. But I don’t want to prejudge that.

MC: Sure.

KT: We are just going to wait and see what happens.

MC: Okay. We have just got a couple more minutes. The Greater Bay Area, some details have been announced. Yet again people say that this is going to even further worsen Hong Kong’s autonomy. Does that worry you?

KT: I don’t know. I honestly don’t know.

MC: Do you think it will?

KT: I honestly don’t know. I have carefully read the framework that was announced. Let me put a more positive spin on it. I think the Greater Bay Area initiative does create some significant opportunities to reestablish momentum around the reform and opening process for the Chinese economy, using once again, as was the case 40 years ago, and during that 40-year Reform and Opening period, we have heard so much about lately, that to use south China as a place that shows the way to the rest of China, in terms of economic reform and opening. So, a Greater Bay Area initiative that would most excite foreign businesses as well as foreign governments would be one that, in a sense, pushes reform and opening process and the kind of global best practices and rules-based systems that are prevalent in Hong Kong and Macao into Guangdong. That would be great.

MC: Not the other way around?

KT: That would create enormous opportunities for foreign business as well as Hong Kong businesses, as well as mainland businesses, everyone would be happy. So, I really think that, again, the devil is in the details on this, and there weren’t that many details so far. They haven’t announced.

MC: Yeah, they are working on the details.

KT: And if at the end of the day, it’s just some slogans and some bridges, then that’s kind of a neutral outcome, it doesn’t really help open up China, but it also doesn’t really pose a big problem for Hong Kong.

MC: Okay. I have got one minute left. The last time you were here, I asked you free speech is free speech, and you said you can use it even if you promote independence as long as it’s peacefully done. Do you still stand by that?

KT: Well, that’s our approach in the United States. There has been a lot of discussion around flags and anthems of late, and in the United States, you can burn flags or misbehave during the national anthem, people don’t like it when you do it, it’s considered impolite, and not good. 

MC: So free speech is free speech, even for independence?

KT: Certainly, it’s legally protected, free speech.

MC: But for Hong Kong, you think it should be allowed, you can speak about independence peacefully?

KT: Well, our interpretation of freedom of expression is that it’s a boundless thing, and people should be allowed to express themselves as long as they are not specifically hurting another person.

MC: Okay, I have got to end it right there. Thanks. See you next week. Good evening.

Lewis Loud: Love for China Complex

Love for China Complex

Translated by Karen L, edited by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Lewis Loud
Original: https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E6%83%85%E7%B5%90%E7%B3%BE%E7%B5%90%E7%9A%84-%E9%96%8B%E6%98%8E%E6%B4%BE-%E5%8F%AA%E6%9C%83%E5%8A%A9%E9%95%B7%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E6%AE%96%E6%B0%91/ 

During the winter peak flu season, Hong Kong doctors called for the abolition of the one-way permit scheme, as the family reunification (which allows 150 mainlanders to settle here daily) has overloaded the city’s health care system. It was not to incite hatred against mainlanders, but to voice discontent with manpower shortage.

It is expected to see organizations specifically serving new arrivals from China against the advocation of the medical staff, as well as to see some of the leftists take the opportunity to suggest importing more manpower from China.

Those fence-sitters could get along so long as the policy does not screw them over in a rather direct way. Most of these people choose to accept what the reality offers (the overcrowding problem in Hong Kong) however unpleasant it is, for it is a hot potato for anyone while turning a blind eye to it requires no effort.

("To reduce immigrants at the source." Gary Fan,
Claudia Mo, Roy Tam and Chapmen Tsang in front.)

The overpopulation caused by mainland migrant influx has been left unresolved for years. Early in 2013 when New Territories was first overrun by parallel traders, acrimonious debate over ‘cutting people from the source of immigration’ had divided the pan-democracy camp. Gary Fan, Claudia Mo and Roy Tam proved themselves non-rubber-stamped as they saw through the ‘family reunification’ presents the ideology placing mainland Chinese before anyone else. In other words, it is Chinese nationalism/patriotism.

From the 1989 Tian'anmen Square protests to the status quo, the development of Hong Kong politics has attached to ‘the love for China’. Though it is high time politicians on people’s mandate should break silence over the deadlock Hongkongers are facing, they could not preserve our Hong Kong if it means to upset mainlanders. Hongkongers’ well-being is long forgotten; all we hear nowadays are concerns about “this is just what the CCP hopes for” or “that would provoke the CCP”.

To pro-Beijing camp, the inflow of one-way permits holders serves the crucial purpose of national security to assimilating Hong Kong into China. Sharing the “general consensus”, pro-democracy camp tends to stand on the moral high ground, emphasizing how inhumane to compromise Chinese people’s benefits. If it occurs to you that actual allocation of resources is not included in the equation, it is because the camp has never been given real power to rule. The shady past of the “democracy campaigns” presupposes a conflict with local people and their interest. Though at the very inception it was the prospect of a democratic China that motivated them, there from the process derives the community rooted for Hong Kong itself which now comes to stand in the way of these Chinese nationalists. The beginning should predict the ending.

In this context of history, a Chinese idiom precisely describes pan-democracy camp’s political standing. Translated into “be spat on the face and let the spittle dry”, it suggests their fate-resigning mindset under Hong Kong’s political reality mingled with the “Chinese” self-identification that hails CCP in trusting it to be orthodox for the conception of China. Thus it explains why many of them are not convinced that Hong Kong is being invaded at the time of speaking, and is going to be handled as another Xinjiang, Tibet and Mongolia. It can also be found in them the chauvinism that generalizes neighbouring countries that can be traced back to the same ancestry to a part of one great China, the prerequisite of disapproving Hong Kong Independence by all means, and so forth.

Career politicians in Hong Kong are acquainted with the fact that crying out for “democracy” and “human rights” keep their seats; at the least such statement would not get them disqualified from the elections. Despite the former has no foreseeable future, the latter, namely Chinese migrants’ human rights, can be satisfied almost effortlessly with the solicitous help from pro-Beijing camp. Cases in point abound in public housing, social welfare, and this time medical services. Their love of China was respected during the colonial period, but with resources taken into account today, it has turned them into accomplices to exploiting Hongkongers’ welfare to the full. 

Under British rule, we used to honour democracy, freedom and human rights. Common virtues as such, sadly, have been rendered to some classic textbook examples in Critical Thinking 101. Sooner or later, the magic of verbal fallacies will fade and inevitably those “democracy-oriented” politicians’ influences will be overridden by their hardcore loyal pro-Beijing counterparts. A tragedy it is, but a sure price to pay with neither genuine Hong Kong identity nor support from China.

Yu Jie: “One Country, Two Systems” Lover and “Father of Democracy” Reveal Oxymoron

“One Country, Two Systems” Lover and “Father of Democracy” Reveal Oxymoron

Translated by Karen L, written by Yu Jie 余杰
Original: https://hk.thenewslens.com/article/112981 

When Martin Lee, “father of democracy” in Hong Kong, was interviewed in Taiwan, he commented that CCP shall consider reverting to the original blueprint for “One Country, Two Systems” as its tightening control over Hong Kong is costing Hongkongers’ sense of belonging and has slowed down the advancement of the system in Taiwan.

For a veteran politician and barrister, Martin Lee’s behind-the-times remark was so embarrassing that it cannot even level with those pseudo-reformists in mainland China. Trapped in a Sinocentrism/democratic-reunification ideology, he has lost touch on the pulse of China, Taiwan and his home Hong Kong. His time must have been frozen either before 1997 or 1989 to have granted him untainted confidence to such lovely speech. His past contributions and achievements are respected, but his speeches and actions preventing the new generation to move forward have made him an unjustifiable “father of democracy”.

Asking a Tiger for Its Skin

It is in Marin Lee’s ideal that “Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong”, “a high degree of autonomy” and “maintaining Hong Kong’s way of life largely unaltered for 50 years” are duteously embodied in Deng Xiaoping’s “One Country, Two Systems”. He added that Hong Kong people is losing faith in today’s central government as it goes back on its words and changes everything in Hong Kong. Living under the “great purge” in Xi Jinping’s regime, many, Martin Lee included, shows the very picture of missing the good old days, seemingly undisturbed by Deng Xiaoping’s doing in the Tian'anmen Massacre 30 years ago.

The true nature of Deng Xiaoping is somehow embellished in Martin Lee’s thought. Xi Jinping’s leadership is despotism; so does Deng Xiaoping’s. Taking stock of the situation, the two paramount leaders have strategies employed differently from each other. In times of Deng Xiaoping, China was not yet one of the world’s most powerful countries, and it was still busying befriending everyone there was. He would be willing to sugarcoat the country’s ultimate goal just to wheedle Hongkongers into embracing the idea of Handover. Today, in the era of Xi Jinping, a would-be rise of power, the leader could not care less about throwing down the gauntlet to Hong Kong and the rest of the world. Xi Jinping was in fact going full steam ahead, not backward, to what Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping have planned for the future of China.

On 4 June 1989, it was by Deng Xiaoping’s direct order that the tanks and machine guns were brought in the Square to suppress the protests. He can be called a killer, murderer or butcher, causing the death of thousands of people on the spot without batting an eyelash. If he was to be trusted and given full recognition, holding the memorials year by year would be shooting the participants themselves in the foot.

Xi, Proud of Being a Dictator

“I believe Xi Jinping is wise enough to tell that violence is not the way out,” Martin Lee optimistically said as he appealed to the central government for implementing genuine democracy in Hong Kong. This could showcase, as Martin Lee suggested, Xi Jinping as an open-minded reformist leader. A fine line between being naïve/innocent and over-confident/narcissistic catches Martin Lee off guard, making him switch back and forth from a “patriotic remonstrator” to an “animal trainer”, and vice versa.

Similar examples are found throughout the history. There was Qu Yuan during the Warring States period of ancient China who felt extreme despair to the then political situation and took his own life as a form of expostulation. It was his point-blank refusal to admitting tyrant in authority that led to his “sacrifice”.

On an ancient Chinese text Han Feizi’s account, a man named Bian He found an invaluable piece of jade in Chu’s mountains, and made his offer to King Li of Chu. The King thought it was a mere stone, so he punished Bian He by having his left foot cut off. When Wu came to the throne, Bian He once again offered his jade to the King and ended up having his right foot cut off. Years later, Wu’s heir Wen was informed of Bian He’s grieving with tears for three days and three nights, and he sent his man to question Bien He. “I’m not grieving for my feet. I’m grieving for the wrongs that a precious jade is called a regular stone, as a loyal subject is called a liar,” Bian He replied. Possibly moved by his words, King Wen of Chu had his jeweler cut open the stone and surprisingly found a piece of pure jade inside. Upon seeing it, the King named the jade He Shi in honour of Bian He.

Yet from my years of study, the Xi Jinping Martin Lee has hoped for has come too far to being another King Wen of Chu. Gambling a pair of feet on such a leader does not have much chance to secure a promising future.

Hong Kong Independence Represents a Bright Time to Come

On the issue of Hong Kong independence, Martin Lee deviated from the spirit of rule of law to separate independence as a major part of democracy. The rise of such idea, in his understanding, can be explained by the lack of belief in “a handful of people” to strive for democracy in the democrats’ discipline. Without the central government’s approval and support, independence is “impossible to attain” and “not an option for Hong Kong”. All these get one to wonder what the “father of democracy” or his preferred “grandfather of democracy” is made of when he is convinced that the fruits of democracy can grow without the tree.

In Martin Lee’s theory, independence is like a pillow that disappointed Hongkongers fall on and shed tears on; if not under CCP’s oppression, there will be no need for the negativity-soaked pillow. More and more people beg to disagree as independence mirrors the entitled self-determination of any district plainly stated in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The awakening of the independence movement in Hong Kong shares the noble values with the rest of the world. It will be best for Hong Kong if and only if Hong Kong cuts ties with China.

Culturally and politically speaking, waves of hardships are to be encountered head-on and we shall stay strong. And there is still a long way to go before the campaign of Hong Kong independence surpasses theoretical grounds and propagation. Active exertions from our own kind are sufficient, while the realization of independence does not come easily unless big changes in the international environment (e.g. China’s disintegration) are involved.

If Martin Lee still feels that independence in Hong Kong stands without a chance, he might want to take a look at Edmund Burke’s speech on the Thirteen Colonies. When the Proclamation of Rebellion was issued to order officials “to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress the colonial revolt”, the then member of the British Parliament criticized, “What advances have we made towards our object, by the sending of a force, which, by land and sea, is no contemptible strength? Has the disorder abated? Nothing less.” Burke was aware that “the removal of the causes of this Spirit of American Liberty be, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable.” And he added, “I should hold myself obliged to conform to the temper I found universally prevalent in my own day, and to govern two million of men, impatient of Servitude, on the principles of Freedom.” These are what a “father of democracy” should have said to Xi Jinping.

Someday when most of Hong Kong is equipped with the “prevalent temper” that is “impatient of Servitude”, our home will make impressive strides in resisting China’s tyranny. By then, Hong Kong independence will be a feasible vision.

Lewis Loud: “HK's Father of Democracy” Not So Democratic After All

“HK's Father of Democracy” Not So Democratic After All

Translated by Karen L, written by Lewis Loud
Original: https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=57126&fbclid=IwAR3XxwdJyEAopOcVAJpkUF0NrKCo3vBGoyHrqnwQpoTlcyHPD5xhW6Bki-o 

[Summary, not full translation]

(Photo courtesy: Citizen News/Ho Kwan-kin)

The deep-seated scholar-official tradition sanctifying “impress the emperor for practising the scholar's ideals” (dejun xingdao) is in another dimension where the populace of a country is given trust to contribute oneself to examining the political reality. To this day, the pro-democracy camp is more of incompetent yet loyal courtiers in imperial China; they give advice but know their place enough not to get “over the line”. The “democracy” they have been pursuing is a bestowment from the holy CCP rather than a common effort people would assume. Denying self-determination and separation, they are insulting the spirit of democracy, making themselves peers to the Pro-Beijing camp.

Martin Lee Chu-ming, the “Father of Democracy”, too, expressed his presumption on many occasions that the Hong Kong Independence bandwagon would calm so long as Xi Jinping returned to Deng Xiaoping’s leadership style and restored the democracy under “One Country, Two Systems”, though it never seems to occur to Lee that CCP would be more welcomed to flash its winning card to Hong Kong people than handing over real power and acting as a titular head. Considering that missile tests were launched by CCP at the time when Taiwan had its first direct presidential election in the history, it goes without saying that they are aware that democracy in real terms IS independence. 

Imagining that there is a directly elected HKSAR government which is genuinely responsible to Hong Kong people, certain policies (e.g. dealing with the population overload) will be regulated so as to protect the benefits of the citizens. Fair decisions as such will compromise China’s interest for its part; granting Hong Kong democracy, therefore, remains to be a far-fetched hope.

It is the self-proclaimed democrats’ superficial knowledge over Chinese culture that leads them to believe Deng Xiaoping’s “relatively moderate” leadership is the way out. Not knowing that China’s political philosophy has long been an infinite loop—the means of winning is not necessarily about being just and honourable, but ironically enough, those are employed as counter-argument when one loses—democrats conveniently take the old practice of Deng Xiaoping for the solution. However undogmatic he might seem to be, Deng Xiaoping did what he had to sustain CCP’s power. The illusional freedom and open social environment that followed were by-products after all for he had decided to settle them by violence. Even though being high up in the rank, the leaders in China are merely pawns under the development of the country. Someone assertive has to follow up what Deng Xiaoping has left behind, and the person can be others if not Xi Jinping.

“One Country, Two Systems”, by the same token, does not exist to preserve Hong Kong’s special status, but as a buffer to gradual assimilation (Basic Law provides that the current system will remain unchanged for 50 years and the details stay ambiguous). The democrats could let out a spate of nonsense and mislead us the policy is entitled to autonomy, but it still does not change the fact that the failure of the policy in our eyes is what it is meant to be.

Embracing the unification of the country, these “democrats” centre on moral judgment, but no practical problems like resource allocation. Martin Lee is no difference, and he would advise Hong Kong people in earnest not to exclude people from mainland China in discussions. But then again, isn’t it the people from mainland China who are the ones occupying our limited living space? Really, do we ever have a say in this?

Even the “liberal” politicians would call for Deng Xiaoping’s leadership, from which you can tell what is referred to as “liberal” is not liberal, and what is called “democracy” is a fake one. Sinocentrism had prevailed during the development of ancient China, and now, modern China is going backward to hail despotism as the ultimate solution. Nothing changes.

Lunar New Year Message from Chris Patten, HK Governor in 1995

1995年香港總督彭定康農曆新年賀辭

Read by Christopher PATTEN, Cantonese voiceover by CHUNG Wai-ming

你哋好。一年就快過去，另外一年亦都來臨，而家喺我哋同家人同親友歡聚一堂嘅時候，我相信大家都會花多啲時間，想一想喺過去一年裡便，我哋認為做得滿意嘅事，包括我哋真正喜歡做嘅事、一齊分享過嘅趣事以及合力實現嘅理想。我哋亦會展望新嘅一年，想到一切我哋希望做嘅事、希望付諸實行嘅明智決定同埋希望成功完成嘅工作。

當我哋為家人想到要做嘅事嘅時候，相信我哋亦同樣為社會設想，為香港呢個美好嘅城市設想。喺過去一年，雖然偶然有波折，但係我哋仍然能夠一一咁應付到。而且我相信，喺世界其他地方，差不多冇人應付得好過我哋。

經濟問題困擾住整個世界，但係香港喺過去幾十年來一直都能夠應付裕如，而且可以講係傲視同儕添。點解？其實幾份報章同雜誌，以及美國智囊團，喺舊年發表嘅意見，都可以為我哋提供部分嘅答案。佢哋有啲將香港稱為全世界最有利於營商嘅城市，有啲稱讚香港係全世界最自由嘅經濟體系，又有啲認為香港係全世界競爭最激烈嘅地方之一。香港市民實力十足，勇於進取，刻苦耐勞，為香港創造好多優越條件，使我哋嘅經濟每年都持續增長。雖然其他地方都要面對種種問題，但係我哋仍然能夠撥出資源去做我哋想做嘅事。

我哋已經睇到舊年嘅部分工作成果，我哋目睹各項社會計劃不斷發展，尤其是喺培育青少年方面，我哋更加係不遺餘力，我相信呢個係你哋極為重視，亦都係香港前途嘅所繫。我哋將更多嘅資源用喺發展幼稚園、中小學、專上學院、訓練學校同大學嘅教育上。為咗確保青少年能夠獲得最佳嘅機會，呢方面嘅投資係至為重要嘅。

但係，我哋亦都為年老嘅市民設想，並且為佢哋提供更多嘅服務。我哋年長嘅親友為香港締造繁榮，因此佢哋應該享受香港今日嘅豐碩成果。佢哋應該同我哋一齊分享我哋嘅卓越成就。

金錢唔係生命中唯一最重要嘅嘢，我相信人人都希望心境安寧，因此努力使香港成為一個非常安全嘅居住地方。喺呢方面，我哋做得出色過其他地方，但係我哋唔會因此自滿。香港有出色嘅警隊，我希望佢哋經常獲得應有嘅資源同支持，你哋透過參與撲滅罪行委員會等嘅工作，給予警隊好多支持。喺我哋嘅努力之下，香港會繼續係亞太區，甚至係全球其中一個最安全嘅地方。

呢啲係過去嘅事。將來又點樣？我哋仍然需要確保香港嘅經濟能夠繼續使我哋獲得理想中嘅生活同水平。我哋仍然要不斷發展各項社會計劃。我認為我哋喺新嘅一年仲要注意幾件非常重要嘅事。首先，法治係使香港出類拔萃同取得卓越成就嘅原因之一。我哋訂立嘅公平規則，適用於每一個人，不論佢係乜嘢身分，就算係總督都要遵守。呢種法治精神，亦都令香港成為一個特別適合營商嘅理想地方，並且提供一種團結社會嘅力量，使社會更加穩定同繁榮。

我哋都知道我哋需要肩負歷史任務，盡量使香港喺一九九七年成功過渡。對我哋嚟講，呢項係艱鉅嘅任務。但係我哋希望能夠同中方官員有更佳嘅合作，取得更好嘅成績。因為如果能夠成功完呢一項偉大而獨特嘅任務，將香港主權移交中國，對我哋各方面都有好處。

相信各位都知道，每一個星期我都會花費好多時間巡視各區，探訪屋邨、學校、醫院、工廠以及其他不同嘅地方。我想真係睇到差不多香港嘅每一樣事物，有時仲去勻香港嘅每一個地方添。舊年，我巡視各區嘅時候，得到各位親切迎迓，盛情款待，我要借呢個機會向你哋致謝。

我未必同你哋每一位都見過面，但係有時我覺得大家好似見過面，對於我喺過去一年未曾有機會同各位相遇過嘅市民，我謹祝你哋喺新嘅一年萬事如意、身體健康。

我殷切盼望能夠喺新嘅一年有機會同各位見面。喺呢度，我謹代表內子同女兒，恭祝全港市民新年快樂。我深信，我哋都期望香港以及我哋嘅家園喺豬年事事順遂，心想事成。恭喜發財。

Good evening.

I think at the end of one year and the beginning of the next, when we're gathered together at home with our families and loved ones, all of us spend a good deal of time thinking about what's gone well in the previous year: the things we've really enjoyed, the jokes we've shared together, the ambitions that we've realised together.

And we look forward to a new year, to all the things we'd like to do, all the good resolutions we've made, all the things we'd like to succeed in.

Just as we think about that for our families, I guess we think much the same about our community, much the same about this wonderful city of Hong Kong.

Over the last year, despite the occasional ups and downs, we've managed to cope once again more successfully than I guess almost anybody else in the world could manage. There are economic troubles around the place, but Hong Kong has always shown itself, for decade after decade, to be much more capable at coping with all that than almost anyone else in the world.

Why?

Well, one or two newspapers and magazines and American think-tanks have given us a clue over the last year. One of them said that Hong Kong was the most business-friendly city in the world, another said that this was the freest economy in the world, another that we were one of the most competitive places in the world.

Because of all that, which is a huge tribute to your strength and courage and hard work, we've had year after year of economic growth, and we've been able - despite the problems elsewhere - to provide the resources to do the things that we want to do.

We've seen some of that in the last year. We've seen our social programmes developing. In particular, and - I think this is where you place so much priority - we've been able to do more for the young, and that's where our future lies. We've been investing more in kindergartens, in elementary and secondary schools, and in colleges, training colleges, and universities. That's so important to make sure that our young people have the best possible chance in life.

But we've also thought more and done more for the elderly. It's our elderly relatives, our elderly friends, who built Hong Kong, and they deserve the best of Hong Kong today. They deserve to share in some of our success.

It's not just money that matters in life. I think people want peace of mind, and we've done better than others - without being at all complacent - in keeping our city a pretty safe place to live in. We have a marvellous police force here in Hong Kong. I want to see that they always have the resources and support that they deserve. You give them a lot of that support, with the fight crime committees and so on. And with our help I know that Hong Kong will go on being one of the very safest places not just in the region but in the world.

So that's the past. What of the future?

We have to go on making sure that our economy can go on delivering the quality and standard of living that all of us desire. We have to go on developing our social programmes.

There are a couple of other things which I guess will matter very much over the coming year.

First, one thing which helps to make Hong Kong distinctive and helps to make Hong Kong successful is the rule of law: the fact that we have fair rules that apply to everyone. Whoever you are, whether you're the Governor or whoever, the same rules apply. That makes this a particularly good place to do business, but it also provides some of the glue which holds our society together, and makes it more stable as well as more prosperous.

And we all know that we've got a historic task: to manage the transition through 1997 as successfully as possible. It's difficult for all of us to do that. But we want to work better and more successfully with our Chinese colleagues, because it's in all our interests to succeed in the great and unique enterprise which is represented by the transition to Chinese sovereignty.

I spend, as I think you know, a good deal of each week out on the street, visiting housing estates, schools, hospitals, factories, and places of work. Really, I think, getting to see almost everything in Hong Kong, and sometimes it seems getting to see everywhere. I'd like to thank all of you for your kindness and your courtesy and the warmth of your greeting whenever I've been out and about in the last year.

I probably haven't seen all of you, although it sometimes feels as though I have. For those of you that I haven't seen personally over the past year, I'd like to offer my warmest good wishes for the year ahead.

I very much hope that we will meet over the next 12 months. In the meantime, on behalf of my wife Lavender and my family, I wish everyone a very Happy New Year.

All of us, I'm sure, want for Hong Kong what we want, in the Year of the Pig, for our families. Kung Hei Fat Choy.