Lewis Loud: Stanley Cheung Incident Unveils Ethnic Mentality of HK (with BG)

Stanley Cheung Incident Unveils Ethnic Mentality of HK

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Lewis Loud
Original: http://dadazim.com/journal/2015/07/national-mental-illness/ 

Basic info about Stanley Cheung Incident. In 1996, Stanley Cheung Yun-hang, his classmates and two teachers went to Pat Sin Leng for hiking. A cigarette butt was found, and had caused Pat Sin Leng hill fire, which caused the deaths of two teachers and three students from HKCWC Fung Yiu King Memorial Secondary School and left 13 others injured. Cheung himself was severely burned. Recently [in late June/early July], there are a lot of discussion as there was a dust blast incident in Taiwan, causing over 500 injuries, with most victims seriously burned. Stanley Cheung claimed that he was invited by Taiwan organisations and he hoped that he can encourage the victims with his past experience, yet it has caused a serious rebounce on the Internet. People also cast doubt on him, as he again tries to use his fame to promote himself even when a Taiwan netizen asked him not to go. Yet, on 30th June, Cheung brought the camera team from TVB programme The Scoop to Taiwan, which contradicts to what he said before -- "no camera during hospital visits". There were certain classmates saying that Cheung was the one who left the cigarette butt and caused the hillfire and left their comments on Facebook, but soon they were deleted by Cheung. After being accused, Cheung finally admitted he smoked back then on an interview by Apple Daily (3rd July), but denied leaving a cigarette butt, and even said "so what even if you find the truth", further aggravating the emotions of his former classmates and netizens.

===================

The controversy over Stanley Cheung incident unveils the ethnic mentality of Hong Kong.

First, it shows the superstition towards professionals, which was bred since the 1970s. Many people think that reconstructing the news reports, Coroner's report and statements are "just a few sentences by the netizens" or "there's no cost of doing that", so they disdain such articles.

These people will share the posts from journalists, and believe in the spin doctors for Cheung in Ming Pao or Apple Daily, and disdain the evidence or reconstruction. These are superstition towards professionals. When reporters say something, the mass believes in them; but for "commoners" or online media, even if they spend lots of time to investigate on the hill-fire and to prove the discrepancy between what Cheung has said and what the victims said back then, these people will still think "it's just a few sentences by the netizens". They have the exact same attitude as Cheung, "So what if you find out the truth?"

Those who blindly follows the "professional journalists" will automatically filter the voices from "the netizens".

Education aims to make complete men. After the industrial revolution, men are divided into different streams and professions, with intellectual barriers -- you don't know much about mine, I don't know much about you. As a result, people are more professional than before, and have fewer common sense than before. 

With fewer common sense, there are also superstitions towards other professions: Stanley Cheung studied social work, psychology and counselling. With a burnt face and his rehab experience, he becomes the "professional" and has the final say. It becomes a matter of course for him to visit the victims in Taiwan. So, they have simply neglected the common sense that victims should not be interfered by others when they were in the initial stage (not to mention Stanly Cheung's face).

A friend of mine studies journalism. He told me many of his classmates liked the spinning "coverage" from Ming Pao, which criticised netizens "writing a few sentences which involve no cost". Those journalists-to-be are, as usual, very arrogant.

As journalists think highly of themselves, those senior lecturers could make their students to believe that "the truth will and only will be shown to the world by journalists". So what they blindly support is their say. They don't understand the Internet is growing so rapidly that information is easily obtainable. We are now in 2015, not 1996, an era when people used IE or Yahoo, or "journalists" could impact people's minds with their pens.

Big channels or newspapers are not God. The truth does not necessarily have to be shown by their hands. Mainstream media no longer have the authority they used to enjoy, thanks to self-censorship and brown-nosing Beijing.

Second, the controversy has shown the "mediocrity" which a lot of Hongkongers crave for. Blue-ribbon uncles or market aunties bash the Occupy Movement because they hate "noises". Those who oppose to unveil the truth of the Pat Sin Leng Hill Fire hate the "Internet noises". They do not care about the truth nor justice, nor whether this "life warrior" has caused others' death. These people 

just want the world "look peaceful" or listen only to good deeds by others. No in-depth investigation, no "noises".

You don't want noises, don't you? You just want your good old days, living happily forever, is that so? You are just like "Blue Ribbons". Don't tease at them. They listen to TVB, you listen to the "Big Stage". Stop calling the pot black, you kettle.

Passiontimes: Christians Have Spoken: "Paul Kwong Does NOT Speak for Me!"

Christians Have Spoken: "Paul Kwong Does NOT Speak for Me!"

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 熱血編輯部 (Passion Times Editorial Team)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-08-2014/17606

Archbishop Paul Kwong's recent comment against the July 1 protesters has sparked storm of revulsion among Christians and non-believers. Some Christians have opened a Facebook page titled "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me", declaring that the opinion of the Archbishop of Hong Kong Anglican Church has nothing to do with them.

Kwong, who has always been conservative, was appointed a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (China's political advisory body) in 2013. In an interview at the time, Kwong openly opposed to using civil disobedience to achieve universal suffrage in 2017. "Universal suffrage is not a panacea," Kwong said, "but it has been idealised too much."

Many who have participated in the July 1 march only did so to get abroad the bandwagon," Kwong said in a recent sermon.some students' complaint of "having no food and water for hours" and "long queues for the bathroom", Kwong mocked the young protesters and said, "Why don't bring along your maids next time?" Kwong told Christians to ask themselves "What Would Jesus Do", but his version of Jesus was a "gentle and humble" man who uttered not a word when He was brought before Pilate, like a lamb waiting to be slaughtered.

Kwong's comment stirred up resentment among the Christian community after it was widely reported by local medias. Passion Times' author Do Chan condemned Kwong as a false prophet.

A Facebook page "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me" was opened this morning, listing out Kwong's past controversies, one example being his comment "universal suffrage is not a cure-all".

[Translator note: As of writing, the page has recorded over 1000 Likes.]

Link to "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me" page:
https://www.facebook.com/pKwongnotme

Do Chan: Paul Kwong - a Living Example of a False Prophet

Paul Kwong - a Living Example of a False Prophet

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 陳到 (Do Chan)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-08-2014/17597

Archbishop Paul Kwong of Hong Kong Anglican Church (aka Sheng Kung Hui) gave a sermon at St. Paul's Church on 6th July, which was also a Confirmation celebration and theological education Sunday.

In honour of the tradition where the bishop blesses the baptised to follow the example of Jesus Christ in the Confirmation celebration, Kwong mentioned more than once that Christians should always ask themselves, "What Would Jesus Do?" (WWJD). But on what Jesus would do in the face of Hong Kong's current political climate, he took a firm stand, "I do not believe Jesus would have thrown objects in LegCo, nor would He have berated the government officials, nor would He have used irrational and violent means to express Himself."

Kwong continued to claim that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels was very "consistent": Jesus was "gentle and humbled" when He was condemned before Pilate, silent like a lamb waiting to be slaughtered. Those who came out to protest had "no peace within, nor do they have the wisdom to think straight," Kwong argued, "that's why you see so much irrational responses, some are even worried that they will no longer be allowed to protest next year." The greatest bullsh*t of all was when he taunted those arrested after July 1 overnight sit-in to "bring along their maids". The way I would like to respond to his sermon is that the Archbishop just demonstrated how to be a false prophet.

False prophets preach "the other gospels"

Kwong said Christians should always ask themselves what Jesus would do, but he himself has little knowledge of the Jesus as the Bible records. "Jesus Cleanses of the Temple" is a story well-known even to non-believers. And what He did was in no way close to being "gentle"; Has Jesus ever berated anyone? The Bible has records of Jesus looking at those who were spying on Him in anger, Jesus rebuking His disciples, and Jesus publicly berating the Pharisees and Sadducees as "brood of vipers". Jesus would be the last person to be gentle when injustice is before Him. Kwong's depiction of Jesus as a man of little words is a shameless distortion of the Lord's image into one that fits his own pro-government leaning. Such a person is no man of God. Kwong must confess his sins and repent, otherwise may he never ascend into Heaven no matter how tall his bishop's mitre is.

False prophets heralds "false peace"

First let's take a look at passage in scripture (Ezekiel 13:8-16):

"Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: ... My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. ... Because they lead my people astray, saying, 'Peace,' when there is no peace, ... The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace,  declares the Sovereign LORD."

The scripture passage mentions those false prophets who misled others by saying, "Peace," when there was no peace. Kwong's sermon was a perfect example of false prophecy. He spoke of how Hong Kong is beset by a host of problems, but what he did was teach his parishioners to have peace, and slander the protesters as having no peace within. This is not and never will be the teaching of the Holy Scripture. The Bible does not instruct people to be ostriches that profess "spiritual victories" but are ignorant of the dangers of the outside world. The Bible has always been a book of truth. The role of a prophet is to warn people of the consequences of sins, and that people should turn away from their sins and do what pleases God. Calling upon Christians to be "gentle and humble" when facing serious issues is essentially telling Christians to keep their mouths shut and stay away from politics and from the truth. But with China trampling on all aspects of the city's life, it's only natural for Hongkongers to cry for help, and to fight back in self defence. But Kwong, on the other hand, brush people off and says, "Suck it up, it'll all end soon." A pastor like this, even one is too many for our own good.

Towards the end of his sermon, Kwong reverberated, "We as Christians should follow the example of Christ, so that people see that we are different," stressing that Christians should remain silent like the meek and gentle Jesus he had depicted.

I agree in all certainty that Christians should follow Christ's example to become like Jesus, so that people see that we are different, which is just the reason why we should follow His steps to stand up against injustice and sacrifice for the greater good.

[Translator note: Paul Kwong was appointed as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, China's political advisory body, in 2013.] 

Pan Lei: Who is at loggerheads with Christians?

Who is at loggerheads with Christians?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L. and Kristeeq, Written by Pan Lei 

Original: http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/chinpang/post/1328292959 

It can be lonely for one to be a Christian in this day and age: on social occasions, religion is definitely not a comfortable topic (especially in front of nonbelievers); in the mainstream media, we usually see more negative rather than positive news about Christians, and some Christians might even think the media is hostile towards them. And what is more, we, as Christians, have to bear all those brunt, including ridiculing of some of our habits and thoughts as well as doubts about our faith. How should we react in this seemingly hostile society?

Two months ago, I wrote an article, entitled If Christians Don't Know How to Respect in Macau Times, which was then reposted in The News Lens, a Taiwan website with lots of discussion threads. Among the comments, most seemed to agree that there is a lack of respect from Christians towards other cultures and religions, echoing their vigorous dislike upon Christianity. Several viral videos online were cited as examples: a preacher "dismembered" a Kuan-yin (Goddess of Mercy) statue; some Christians damaged several Buddhist ritual implements and a pastor asked God to help a sister to recover her hymen.

For a long time, I have realised that Christianity is not respected in the modern world, but still I am shocked by people's intense hatred of the belief system. Indeed, Taiwan is a specific context of this topic and does not represent an isolated incident. General emotional resistance towards certain Christians' behaviour and reasoning is appearent among the community. Viewing this phenomenon from a delusional perspective, some Christians feel "persecuted", some choose to pass the buck to the "evil spirits", and some even state this reaction as demonstration of "decline of moral values". No matter what there are always some people to propose such an opinion: "This is an epoch in which Christians face hostility everywhere. To step back and comprise are not options, instead we should persevere against adversity and stand firm!"

I wonder how there are so many people intent on "persecuting Christians". In Discussions on The Society for Truth and Light written by Daniel Cheung Kwok-tung, an epistemologist studying religion-related topics, what attracts me most are not the analyses nor the criticisms on The Society for Truth and Light (STT, a fundamentalist Christian organisation against homosexual marriage), but the related discussions of evangelicalism inside, a conservative Protestant movement founded in American, of which it was generated by some believers' presumption of themselves living in a hostile society.

Back in the 1960s, the era of civil movements, there was a "de-religionisation" trend in the States: for the sake of religion neutrality, praying was banned in public schools. Instead, the "evolutionism" entered the curriculum, and abortion was legalised by the society. It struck the nerve of many believers, who then claimed themselves as the "Moral Majority", and aimed to "Take America Back for God". In order to strengthen its influence, they led the movement's development to another level – to be allied with the Republicans, the conservative power in the political field. Some evangelical pastors opposed environmental protection policies for Bush's government, and some extreme believers even launched demonstration at the funeral of soldiers who had been serving in Iraq, because they had faith that God was punishing the morally degenerate country.

These kind of Christians conceive that society is brewing a "cultural war", attempting to persecute Christians in the name of "political correctness" by all means. They believe that those "extreme liberalists" are in line with mainstream media, so as to make Christians desperate.

But are their thoughts the truth? Doesn't what they deduce follow a practice of retrocausality? The case might not be people using Christians' kinds of ideologies (such as human rights, freedom, multi-culturalism, rational thinking...)as weapons to "strike" Christians. In other words, Christianity isn't the object of attack to the general public, but rather certain behaviours by people as Christians. It's not personal but is being judged on its own merits. It's possibly the time for certain Christians to let go of the impulsive "counter-attack" and with open-mindedness, to think about why the world has changed, to see if non-Christian's thoughts are reasonable in some way. And how should the communication between Christians and non-Christians proceed.

Satan might not be the enemy who criticised you, but rather your own mind, like delusional disorder or paranoia. On the contrary, people who criticised you might be angels bringing a space of self-reflection. In today's society, if you, as a Christian, feel alone and not understood by others, what you have to do isn't to immediately start a war against those "imaginary enemies". You, and us too if it suits our descriptions, should sit down and reflect upon ourselves. The lesson is to learn the way to respect and to communicate with the world in a better way.

(Macau Times, May 2014)

Lewis: The Bible-bashers’ Fear of Democracy

The Bible-bashers' fear of democracy

Translated by Vivian L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 盧斯達 (Lewis Loud)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-25-2014/16824 

                                                                               (Execution of Marie Antoinette)

Outspoken Christian celebrity Zac Koo Ho-ching (translator's note: Zac Koo is often dubbed "Bishop Koo" by netizens for his tireless but often wrong public preaching of the Christ faith) recently "reposted" a post on Facebook. Annoyingly spiritual as it could possibly be, there was in fact a passage worthy of pondering upon:

"We must understand that 'democracy' is not the absolute truth. A society where people are masters more often than not steers men away from God and into a road to vanity and pride."

Bible bashers like Zac Koo are hostile towards the notion of "people as masters".  Though not the value of modern western societies, such an attitude has its root as far back as 1789. Like the Neo-Confucian in Song Dynasty where there had been debates on "nature's principles and human desires", Christianity had had a similar spiritual ideal of God's power ruling over men's desires.

At the time of the French Revolution (1789-1799), old ideas were overthrown under the mantra of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", thus followed were the rise of democracies and the spread of nationalism globally, setting the theme of the whole 19th century. Democrats and socialists were both among the proponents of The French Revolution. Meanwhile, scholars and critics offered fierce opposition to the Revolution. They reasoned that not only did the Revolution cause massive fatalities, when ordinary people were to become masters, the consequences could also be unfathomable: nationalists would trample the divine right of the monarchy, and populism would pervert the Constitution and subvert the empire. To those in the opposition, the massive destruction during the Revolution was living proof of the indulgence of human desires and corruption of morality.

The idea that "democracy is not the absolute truth", and that democracy steers the commoners into "a road to vanity and pride" are not an invention by bible bashers in this day and age, but of the political conservatism that came back to power after 1789. Only one year after the Revolution broke out, Irish politician Edmund Burke penned and published his conservatism classic Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke fiercely attacked the Revolution by prophesying that France would fall under a Reign of Terror. Burke wrote:

Law overturned; tribunals subverted; industry without vigour; commerce expiring; the revenue unpaid, yet the people impoverished, a church pillaged, and a state not relieved; civil and military anarchy made the constitution of the kingdom; every thing human and divine sacrificed to the idol of public credit.

Those who are under heavy influence of the traditions of humanism since the Renaissance would think that men are rational, a trait that is of great value to humanity. A learned man would progress and gain wisdom, and would in turn act for the good of himself and others.

The pessimistic conservatives (who possibly are also bible bashers), on the other hand, would think that men's stupidity is as incurable as his original sin. Without the guidance of God, the Church and the clergy, the hegemony of humanism in their minds, would only result in anarchy and chaos just like what happened in the French Revolution. Men are all sinned. An ordinary person who boasts of being any more "rational" than his fellow men is especially sinful and defiant of God. Any decision that any "rational" man made out of self-righteousness would only bring disasters unto themselves.

Democracy is the preferred form of government over other systems because we assume that most people are rational, that they are capable of making decisions for the benefits of themselves, their community and their nation. But this is a questionable proposition. Totalitarianism rests its faith on the party and on its leaders. It sees people as decadent who makes only trouble. This is where traditional Chinese values meets Christian right extremism. These seemingly unrelated doctrines could work in synergy because they share similar ideologies. The Chinese collective subconscious places its hope on a great emperor. The commoners must pray for the king to lead the country to prosperity; while the Christian faith posits that men have a crippled soul that is inherently sinful. The sinners must be helped by God and guided by the church. Individual empowerment thus, in the eye of Conservatives, translates as the triumph of human desire, and of vanity and pride.

Be it LGBT rights or democratic revolution, it is a time when ordinary people step up to overthrow the presence who exists nowhere but who take charge in everything--the almighty "God". But bible bashers question and antagonise democracy because of Christianity's fundamental view on human nature: Men are weak and impotent. Men should lean not unto his own understanding, but believeth in the Lord with all their hearts. Such spiritual mentality in the modern world, in the political sphere especially, would breed a pack of bigoted subjects under the dominion of authoritarianism.

The fears of freedom, of individualism, and of rationality, ultimately cultivate fascism.  In Nazi Germany, there were still churches. But only that the Bible was replaced with a "Nazi Bible", which was rewritten to promote submission to authority, nation and the leaders. Bigoted Christians in today's Hong Kong fall into the arms of fascism's twin brother. They cried in fear: People to be masters of their own and elect its leaders? "Civil nomination"? How can that be? What if some anti-China hooligan is elected? What if 'Long-hair' becomes the next Chief Executive? What if the future CE has Athlete's foot? 

Therefore bible bashers would rather side with the commies. It is only natural that religion would be used as a tool to effect authoritarian rule. bible bashers love their God. But God is metaphysical. So there needs to be someone to execute God's will, someone like Xi Jinping, the Politburo and Leung Chun-ying.

In the post-imperial Europe where monarchs had been beheaded, empires had fallen and nation states had risen, Christianity was once and for all shoved out of the political arena. Deprived of a home, Christianity became a bastard child, drifting aimlessly to find its next political power to latch onto. At last, in despotic Asia, Christianity finds its new Garden of Eden. Bigoted Christians are all over Hong Kong. From Rev. Patrick So Wing-chi (note 1), to entertainer Zac Koo (note 2), to pro-Beijing hunger striker Leticia Lee (note 3), the list goes on and on... These are angels of death who herald the revival of the politics of obscurantism while Hongkongers await their doom.

[Translator's note:
1. A homophobe himself, Rev. Patrick So Wing-chi of The Yan Fuk Church had, on numerous occasions, publicly condemned the gay right law proposal that sought to protect LGBT from discrimination. Rev. So had openly endorsed a number of pro-Beijing LegCo runners and then CE candidates CY Leung.
2. A philander in his youth, Zac Koo now tirelessly preaches his fans abstinence from premarital sex and submission to authority.
3. Leticia Lee See-yin, convener of “Justice Alliance” and a self-proclaimed Christian, begun an indefinite hunger strike to protest against “radical activists” and to demand government suppression of democratic activism. ]