敘述，所以存在／還是被敘述，所以存在：試以臺灣為例—淺論香港主體意識的重構

敘述，所以存在

還是被敘述，所以存在

試以臺灣為例—淺論香港主體意識的重構

Written by Mak Heung-fai 麥向暉

Original: CityU Monthly 2015 April Edition

（蒙城大編委授權刊載，稍後將提供英文版）

(English version will be available soon. Authorised to be shared by CityU SU Editorial Board.)

當是非對錯，尚且糾纏於本土、偽本土、港獨還是一國兩制，而無日無之，距政改方案徹行的時間點，又迫在眉睫，此誠危急存亡之秋也。問題之紛至沓來，固謂亟待解決，然而，至關重要的解釋論述—「我是誰？」，仍然束之高閣。這個概念，顯然是身份認同問題，雖道是尋常，亦看似與眼下的脅逼無關宏旨。其實，身份與信念關係千絲萬縷，恰恰是辨除偽本土、港獨、一國兩制等偽命題之箭矢。拙文以為，身份問題只有重構屬於香港「主體意識」的前提下，才能理解何謂真本土、以至香港之核心價值，卒之決定去留統獨。泛論之，必難以道明，姑且引情狀相類的臺灣以略談—究竟我們「敘述，所以存在；還是被敘述，所以存在」？

Photo Credit: 劉明堂, 何豪毅, 黃謙賢/Taiwan People News

「主體意識」：存在的自我賦予

「主體意識」四字，於香港人，或許陌生非常；一海之隔的寶島，卻心領神會。跳出主權和從屬的非黑即白，擺脫政治角力的制肘，以一地為中心，重新追本溯源，找尋屬於該地原有之文化源頭，並以之為底基，旁及外來的多元文化，肯定一地之獨特性，進而在歷史、文化、經濟上加以闡揚，此之為「主體意識」。惟務須申明者為，主體意識在政治上，往往被外間解讀為「獨立」，實抹黑異見之舉也。前述之主體意識，乃從中性而言，一種自我本位的肯定，一旦就此作政治論述，政見不同者或重新把這拉入黑白二元的困局。臺灣之大漢族主義者，國民黨為首，認為臺灣為中國領土，不可分割，遂誣蔑持論者和民進黨人為伍，即「臺獨」。當然，「主體意識」跟「獨立」貌合，但神離，前者具較大包容性；後者排他性則較明顯，並據主體意識的意涵，採相對極端之論調。礙篇幅所限，不另多贅。

在上述前提下，臺灣自然不是中華民國，該處之落地者乃不折不扣之「臺灣人」。筆者起初也不明所以，在外人角度，臺灣完全跟中華民國劃上等號，而何以謂臺灣人，非為中華民國人？答案在於各人對臺灣「主體意識」的理解。上文就主體意識，淺嘗輒止，也不妨引套之。即是臺灣本來就有不假外求，迥異於別國的文化源頭，甚至民族源頭。最早居於臺灣者，原住民也，諸如泰雅族、阿美族、以及新近認可之拉阿魯哇族等，他們才是臺灣的主人，亦即是臺灣民俗的源頭，其活跡範圍遍及全臺灣，日後族與族之間的生活記憶，成為臺灣主體意識的主要來源。

「我們是臺灣人，不是中華民國人」

文化與歷史的追溯與認知，一直為國民之根本，關乎人民身份之認同。可惜礙於語言隔閡，文字闕如，而且各族尚停留在部落階段，各自為政，主體意識迄自未能凝聚，旋為西方列強所入侵，胎死腹中。直到日治「內地延長主義時期」，有「臺灣孫中山」之稱的蔣渭水、霧峰林家的林獻堂諸人成立「臺灣文化協會」，復興既有文化。臺灣史學家連璜杜撰、首部以臺灣為主角敘述的《臺灣通史》並時出世，始喚醒臺灣人的本土情懷，臺灣的主體意識由是發端。

成也蔣氏，敗也蔣氏，蔣渭水為首之協會，始終秉持着中國國族主義。在打着三民主義植根在臺之口號、復興原住民文化的同時，選擇性排斥部份臺灣的特殊文化，譬如臺灣之傳統劇種「歌仔戲」，雖發祥地是宜蘭，協會認為不值一哂，沒有戮力推揚，觀點反倒較同時代的林呈祿遜色。林則旗幟鮮明，處身日治政府同化政策當道之時，發動「臺灣議會設置請願運動」。簡言之，高度自治也。1928年謝雪紅之臺灣共產黨，政治取態遠比前兩者激進，矢言臺灣徹底獨立。三者相互激宕，60年代的彭明敏某程度上取萃其中，高唱臺灣的主體意識，再據此走上「臺獨」路線。緣是臺灣的主體意識毫無懸念，一連串野草莓、太陽花等本土運動，便從此概念流出。

歷史的「表徵」—「歷史記憶」與「歷史事實」

文化與歷史，關乎人民身份之認同，外來政府欲得政治的合法性，自然要從這兩方面着手，而歷史又有跟文化互為包容的傳統，如是者，篡改人民的「歷史記憶」，由政府取得話語權，敘述人民的「存在」，刻不容緩。論者才疏而孤陋，姑妄引臺灣中央研究院院士王明珂教授之理論，寥作淺解。「客觀存在的史事和文物，足以佐證一段往事之痕跡者，曰『歷史事實』，同時，人類種群，千差萬異，但無一例外，各自傳頌有關本族或本村源起的神話、傳說、靈獸等文化意象，一種主觀塑造自身存在的敘述方式，曰『歷史記憶』。」據王明珂教授之論，即便一河之上、中、下游各有一村，而客觀的材料可證明彼此有非常密切的關係，「歷史事實」也庶幾一致。然，親訪三村，問其傳說而繫乎其村之發軔，竟然大相逕庭，如上游可謂己乃山神之孕、中游道靈獸所生、下游言破石而出，傳說作為「歷史記憶」，決定了三村之分離獨立、生活習俗等，儼然非我族類，縱使「歷史事實」證明三村同源，他們依舊否定。

正因三者有着堅立千仞的自我主觀「敘述」，所以彼此的客觀「存在」便產生不同的分歧和差別。換言之，「歷史記憶」的敘述，會改變「歷史事實」的存在。若執政者有其用心，刻意竄改一地人民的「歷史記憶」，進而變易政權屬外來入侵的「歷史事實」，遂為自己的政權取得合法存在：人民因為「被敘述」，所以才向掌握話語權的人，以附首稱臣的方式「存在」。如此，極為危險。

存在的「被敘述」

上述情況一度發生於臺灣歷史中，最為明顯者，莫如日本和戒嚴時期的中華民國。臺灣史上，當然外來者，有宋朝、清朝時期的中國以及荷蘭，然而，論規模之盛、影響之大，斷然不及日本和中華民國。日本駐臺灣總督兒玉源太郎之副手民政長官後滕新平，於始政時期（1895－1919）已着眼於「歷史記憶」的修改，後來同化時期（1919－1937）進一步提升，皇民化時期（又作皇民化運動時期，1937－1945）則達致高峰。中日八年戰爭，總督小林躋造對當地人的「歷史記憶」大幅竄改，意圖重新打造成「皇國臣民」，使之盡為日本帝國利用，於是推廣國語（日本語）家庭、改姓名運動，臺民改為日本姓名、發展日本神道教，取締台灣傳統信仰、研習日本史等。長此下去，「歷史記憶」的再造勢必令「歷史事實」的臺灣主體意識被消弭，臺灣人形同「被敘述」為日本人，而以「皇民」的方式「存在」。

戒嚴時期（1949－1987）之中華民國與日本只是伯仲之間。蔣介石斯時剛失去中國江山，

(二·二八事件；圖片來源︰未知)

於是擬以臺灣為反攻基地，得以反攻大陸，可戰敗隨蔣抵臺之外省人以及軍隊，紀律敗壞，經濟處理又不善，而本身臺灣人被殖民統治百年之久，蔣亦畏共產黨潛伏臺灣，乃借戒嚴為名，極力打壓一切日治前後的風俗。益有甚者，原住民俱在禁制之列，如學校範圍內，不得用土著語言說話，違者罰款，製造「白色恐怖」，嗣後釀成「二‧二八事件」，戕害冤殺臺灣居民；與此同時，大力推行華夏文化，如將國語定為單一法定語言、修讀中國二千年的歷史等等，臺灣人無疑迎來第二次「歷史記憶」的改造，「被敘述」為中國人，而以「漢人」的方式「存在」。猶幸以上舉措，伴隨日本帝國倒臺、戒嚴時期撤消作罷，彭明敏、施明德等人又重申臺灣的主體意識，讓既有的「歷史記憶」連帶「歷史記憶」得到相當的恢復。儘管國民黨老調重彈，指臺灣為既有領土，亦無阻臺灣人繼承前人真正之主體意識、自我敘述的「歷史記憶」，因此和「歷史事實」契合，而確立以「臺灣人」的「存在」、一種獨立於日本、中國，並和兩者平起平坐之身份。

從未存在過的「香港本土派」

臺灣人還可如此，香港呢？似乎不容樂觀。其主體意識，只有近年，特別雨傘運動失敗後，始有萌芽之象，然，一直拘泥在真、偽本土之別，樞要之主體意識反倒不曾用心。論者不敏，以為主體意識之討論蒙塵，非獨謂時人冷感，實是英國政府刻意為之。蓋香港1842年開埠以先，與中國關係密切，唐軍屯兵、宋帝逃難，皆施於港，細心者，更留意到遠古時代，香港已有人聚居，縱遠古之人，隱歿久渺，莫之能求，惟此種種，悉為香港主體意識的一部分，又適英國作為宗主國，最為忌殫者，無他，慮香港人的主體意識醒覺，省察自身之獨特性，而發現英國僅借武力侵犯此地也，緣此發難，終結英國的殖民統治。

英國乃剛柔並濟，積極拉攏、打壓、分化這種主體意識。中學教育上刻意省略思辨性的哲學、改歷史為選修課，核心課程又以英國史為主，至於有關中國者，別目「中國歷史科」，顯然是受1953中文科檢討委員會報告書（Report of the Chinese Studies Committee）中，對中史教學「不宜過多政治化」的指示影響，香港史之課程，甚至1998年始獲準納入世界史講授課程之一部份。英方此舉，力圖避免惹起港人過多的本土意識，或者意識形態上向中國靠攏，斯時大學教育，仍未普及，故不詳細交待（按：大抵50年代末的香港大學，斯有英人安德葛在歷史系講授開埠以後的香港史，羅香林在中文系之香港史課，則偏重於香港開埠前的歷史），總之，英國漸次改造香港的「歷史記憶」，淡化港人對香港主體意識的理解，相關之體察、考量，自然不成氣候。後來，70至80年代末，英方苦心孤詣下，香港經濟騰飛，卓然成為亞洲四小龍之首，置身紙醉金迷的氛圍，日日絲管，夜夜笙歌，主體意識，落得個無關痛癢。妄論之，現時中國對港的治術，蕭規曹隨，不過主導者由英方換成中方，課程增逸，全然倒置為國族主義為中心思想的論述而已。可憐香港，由始至終，都是「被敘述」，所以「存在」：以英國治民、中國人民的身份「存在」。徒然97回歸挨近、雨傘運動，港人才偶爾思索之。

本土學術？

順帶一提，香港的主體意識，與本土學術不無關係。香港的主體意識一旦廓清，港人便可避免游談無根之弊，何為「真本土派」、「偽本土派」，不攻自破，所以，何去何從，是「統」、是「獨」，端見於此。惜哉香港主體意識的自我論述，在近數年方驟然冒起，而且觸及者，多流於「本土」真偽之皮相，鮮見坊間討論擊中主體意識此要害，更遑論本地學術界了。正當臺灣學者、中央研究院院士杜正勝提出「臺灣地圖左轉90度」論，從學術（歷史觀）角度敘述自身的主體意識，得到廣泛迴響；香港之主體意識，在本土學術之中，迄今未見辯述，或許，源於本土研究多在迎合國際，即學術國際化大潮中，不為大專院校的支持，而遭受消磨、冷落，民間更是和聲罕聞。香港的主體意識，乃被中國、香港政府取得話語權，橫加敘述。

人言人殊。這篇文章，追求獨立者或可以謂之提示香港底基的彌補，國族主義者可以貶損為鼓吹獨立，無論何者，一則此文影響力並沒有如斯可觀，二則「身份認同」的而且確須要釐清，拙文之要旨，即建基於「香港人」與「中國人」的身份平等而互不排斥的情況，思索我們當如何敘述自己的「存在」。以上之論，殊為鄙見，商榷之處，前輩同業，望加指證。

Kevin Chu: On the Role of "United Front"

On the Role of "United Front"

Translated by Karen L., Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by Kevin Chu (建燁)
Original: http://home.macau.ctm.net/~sonpou/1212/Yip.htm 
(Translator's note: Kevin Chu is a current-affair commentator from Macau.)

As "United Front", known as "Tongzhan" in Chinese, explicitly states, it means "centralising the battle fronts". This term is originated from Vladimir Lenin's piece at the time of Soviet Union and is regarded as one of the three weapons of Chinese Communist Party (CCP)'s revolution. Viewing "uniting secondary enemies in attack of primary enemies" as the principle in political competition, CCP thinks highly of "United Front" for both inner- and outer-party issues.

CCP stands out, unquestionably, when it comes to implementations of "United Front" tactic. Expelling Chinese Nationalist Party to Taiwan back in the days is remarkably listed as one of its "achievements". Indeed, CCP succeeds in political struggles one after another conjointly through "United Front". The revelation of broken promises comes along in the meanwhile.

Before the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC), Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, both significant leaders of CCP at the time, gave people their solemn pledge of the future of democracy through Jiefang Daily and Xinhua Daily. Yet, in the end, is there any Chinese on their motherland ever embracing the warmth of democracy? Have anyone ever witnessed one direct election of the President of the PRC? With an endless harassment of the unhealthy political system, how is it possible for a country to alter its economy and livelihood from the ground up?

CCP vowed likewise to bestow ethnic minorities the right to self-determination once, however, not long after the establishment of PRC, Mao Zedong, the founder and chairman, when reviewing the national historical records, indicated that it was a move of expediency gaining their support towards the regime and that there was no need emphasising the right to self-determination anymore.

Mao also claimed that it was not necessary to have expressions such as "the establishment of CCP's regime" and "the fall of the  Kuomintang of China" in order to avoid any deprivation derived from the secession (More on P. 4-5 from the Chronicle by Mao Zedong 1949-1976: Volume I compiled by the CCCPC Party Literature Research Office). To this day, as a matter of fact, self-determination among ethnic minorities still belongs to one of the basic national policies. They see the importance to prepare ethnic minorities of their ability towards self-administration, so as to diminish the inner conflicts once the integration gets in afterwards. And it doesn't stop right here.

Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom, as media from Hong Kong, recently said that Beijing's officers have transmitted a message disqualifying Sino-British Joint Declaration. In the matter of implementation time, the countries should discuss in peace. There will only be problems left if they do not settle with a mutually agree time for implementation.

The term "United Front" from Lenin, surprisingly filled with such stream of thought that is penetrated of Chinese-spy-style. In The Art of War, it reads, "To govern the army properly, it is noted that there is no one closer than spies, deserve receiving more advantages than spies, know more secrets than spies." Likewise, in Wubei Zhi, it reads, "Spying is inevitable when it comes to verse military forces. Harm so caused is unavoidable during the process."

For the term "United Front", the ultimate purpose "uniting secondary enemies" is to employ spies. All is as what Mao said before, "Who is our enemies? Who is our allies? These are the primary problems of revolution we have to solve" (Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society (1925), Mao Zedong). Generally, the symbolic meaning of the term is rather negative, given that its definition sometimes carries the behaviour of bribery. Yet, I stand on the ground that this "United Front" tactic is eventually no more than a tactic that its nature is directly proportional to the user.

To advance insight towards "United Front", along with its historical background, it is one way to achieve ideal liberal education. On the basis of the common use of "United Front" nowadays among CCP and some other related parties, one is able to not only gain knowledge about the past, but fathom today's China from the mist.

Hung Ho-fung: HK's fight against white paper preludes much greater war on Chinese imperialism

Hong Kong's fight against white paper preludes much greater war on Chinese imperialism

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 孔誥烽 (Hung Ho-fung)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-27-2014/16860 

Beijing's white paper officially denounced the end of the one country, two system policy. Widely regarded as the main author and mastermind of the Hong Kong white paper, Jiang Shigong, Peking University Law School Professor, is recently on the hype among China's state media such as People's Daily where he explained Beijing's thoughts behind the white paper in interviews. In one interview, Jiang went so far as to state as fact that the Basic Law came from China's constitution, not from the formally signed Sino-British Joint Declaration. Such statement is a total disregard of the treaty made between two heads of governments, essentially writing the city's constitution off as a trifling matter one can doodle as one pleases.

Who is the author of the white paper?

Who is Jiang Shigong? What is his philosophy regarding Hong Kong affairs? And what does that have to say about Beijing? To put it simply, Jiang's philosophy is a hybrid of extreme-right fascism and extreme-left Maoism of this age. His work in political theorising and in shaping of the public discourse is pivotal in Bejing's quest for a modern imperialistic China. The law professor had penned his philosophies into his book titled "Hong Kong China: Political and Cultural Perspective" (Hong Kong Oxford University Press, 2008).

Chan Koon-chung, a liberal China-loyalist, and Wan Chin, a principal proponent of the Hong Kong City-State Autonomy Movement, have both systemically critiqued Jiang's book from their respective standpoints. But their criticism had gone on without causing a ripple in the public intellectual sphere.

Relentlessly criticised the American imperialism and neoliberalism as a means to defend PRC's party-state capitalism since 1990s, the Chinese New Lefts had grown ever more radical, advocated assimilation of right-wing nationalist beliefs such as Marxism, Maoism and Neo-Confucianism, and the assertion of Leo Strauss and Nazi legal theoretician Carl Schmitt. Jiang Shigong is among those in the new left intellectual community. He served as a conduit for the Schmitt philosophy and the Nazi science of law into Chinese politics: The primary of role of politics is to draw a distinction between friend and enemy, and to defend sovereignty by being in a continual state of emergency.  The rule of law and the parliamentary system are just an unnecessary hindrance.

Jiang was appointed researcher in Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong from 2004 to 2007, a position that he took advantage of to expand his network locally. Many so-called pro-democracy scholars have had a few luncheons with, and pulled a few strings for their friend from the north. During his term in the liaison office, Jiang published a series of articles in a Beijing journal detailing his views on the Hong Kong problem, the revival of Confucianism and a new Chinese empire in the making. These articles paved the way for the writing of his book. Although Jiang's opinions did not particularly stand out among the new left, the notable positions he held in Peking University law school and the liaison office had made him an exemplar of a new left who managed to work his way up in the party-state hierarchy.

The promise of "One Country, Two Systems" could ensure the successful handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Jiang asserted. But since the handover, such a promise has become superfluous. The notion of "One Country, Two Systems" did not offer much help to Beijing as China sought to tackle the most challenging conundrum to its sovereignty over the city—the question of Hong Kong people's national identity. Jiang held that the solution called upon politics and ideology, rather than the law. Beijing must think outside the one-country-two-system box, and use direct political and ideological intervention to turn Hongkongers into patriotic Chinese. Otherwise, China's sovereignty over Hong Kong would exist in name only.

"One Country, Two Systems": an ad hoc promise to shun opposition of "returning to China"

From Jiang's point of view, most Hongkongers, who have familial roots in mainland China, have the heart of patriot that may have been buried deep down (Hong Kong, China, pp. 142-5). Thus, Beijing's first priority is to help Hong Kong's ethnic Chinese to discover their true hearts. Jiang claimed that the British colonial government was good at "brainwashing and winning people's hearts", one tactic that Beijing should follow. Particular attention should be drawn to how Jiang had translated "winning hearts and minds" into Chinese as literally "brainwashing and winning hearts", changing the nuance of a concept universally acknowledged (ibid., p. 31). Beijing must implement ideological work in Hong Kong and at the same time wipe out any local identity, Jiang implied. In hindsight, Beijing's agenda on Hong Kong—the 'patriotic' national education, teaching Chinese language in Putonghua, etc.—closely echoed Jiang's judgement and recommendations.

Jiang argued that Hong Kong's "One Country, Two Systems", modelled after the 1951 seventeen-point agreement between Tibet and Beijing, not only catalysed the handover, it also signified the comeback of the Chinese imperial epoch (ibid., pp. 123-58). The prosperity of the Chinese empire during the Qing dynasty was built upon a Confucian culture that radiated outward and unified surrounding regions, all the while maintaining the empire at the very centre. When a newly acquired territory has a marked culture and a self-governing leader, the Qing emperor would allow the local elites to exercise partial autonomy for a while—until its culture is assimilated and its autonomy confiscated. At this point, the empire would expand even further and acquire more new territories, repeating the same assimilation process. Now that The People's Republic of China has resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong and that it has eye on Taiwan are both signs pointing to China's bid to rekindle the imperialistic expansion in the 21st century. Jiang's intentions are obvious: Hong Kong's "One Country, Two Systems" was merely a ploy and a transitional plan. When the time comes, Hong Kong would be reconstructed into the post-1959 Tibet—forced to be assimilated with PRC and be ruled under Beijing's suffocating rule. When assimilation is over, Beijing is safe to resume its conquest for new lands.

Connecting Jiang's theory on Hong Kong, his ideals for the "celestial empire", with Beijing's white paper, we can get a glimpse into China's plan for Hong Kong: the first step of its quest towards the rebirth of a celestial empire.  In exercising comprehensive control over Hong Kong, China shows the world that it has the power to deter intervention from the United States and to deliberately taunt Britain—the cosignatory of the Joint Declaration—as lacking in courage and competence. Once established, Beijing's comprehensive control over Hong Kong will sound a warning to Taiwan and other countries around Asia. On that note, Hongkongers' fight against Beijing's white paper is not merely a dispute over domestic affairs, but a prelude to a much greater war of Asia and the rest of the world against the reincarnation of the Chinese Celestial Empire.

Yip: Distinction between Men and Food

Distinction between Men and Food

Translated by Choi Siu-wa, Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by 葉政淳 (Yip Ching-shun)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-20-2014/11851 

 

"Some people even say their (Taiwanese) occupy movement is stimulated by Hong Kong's Occupy Central... Some think that Occupy Central is even more radical than occupying the council." says Chan Kin-man, one of the organisers of Occupy Central.

Taiwan students have been opposing Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA) by occupying the Legislative Yuan bravely and determinedly with thorough organisation, swift and decisive actions, and proper advance and retreat. The spokespersons answered the questions smoothly and calmly even though the reporters intended to heckle them. Also, the people of Taiwan are capable of assisting attacks that they all "give support when someone is on the attack". It is really not easy to have such kind of rapport because this requires the people to have a certain level of wisdom.

The people know that they will be in a deadly situation just like being killed slowly once CSSTA is approved, and therefore the students are able to hit back with massive support. On the contrary, Hongkongers are still in their dreams although they already had CEPA approved and are facing a political reform. Those "great" political leaders have been discussing all day long and doing things of little significance through the year.

On the other hand, Taiwanese have enough experience in actions. They understand that actions have to be consistent in order to equally distribute the risk, and the more people are participating, the safer is the movement. If they do not, it will be just another Hong Kong -- I stop when you act; you stop when I act. Everybody is afraid to be the first one standing out and get arrested, looking at each other in fear and getting the movement nowhere.

This massive occupy movement in Taiwan was triggered only by a small spark, and it then set off a series of chain reaction. Pulling the trigger, releasing the hammer, shooting the bullet, a gunpowder factory was detonated. It became a large-scale movement in a night that the Taiwan government was unable to cover it up. The fishers on the tiny island on the opposite coast were completely blown away watching such a series of efficient actions which they are both envious and jealous of.

There were students who initiated social movements in both Hong Kong and Taiwan, and the participants were also the people of the countries. But why did the movements turned out so differently? I always cannot help asking. I guess the answer is the difference in geography, form of government, history, education and folk customs, making two ethnic groups looking alike but having incomparable qualities. The word "meme" really isn't a joke.

It seems that even the Taiwanese girls' boobs are generally bigger than the Hong Kong girls’. We call it "the boobs of the other women are softer" and "Taiwanese girls' boobs are particularly round" [Editor's note: This is modified from two idioms, 隔籬飯香 (rice from your neighbour smells better than your own) and 外國的月亮特別圓 (the moon in foreign countries are rounder), both referring to something out there is better than one's own].

You do not need to ask a "Boobs Clan elder" to examine because you will find the answer out yourselves by taking a closer look at them. Hey, I am not asking you to look at their boobs. Instead, I am asking you to look at the people, and the scenes of protest of those students and people. They have been demonstrating their excellent quality of citizenship from storming the door to resisting the police, from the order to the materials management during the occupation, and from building barricades for defending themselves to preparing scripts for responding the media.

They are lucky to be in Taiwan because they will be labelled as rioters at the very beginning if they are in Hong Kong. It will begin with the vilification from the media, and will be followed by criticisms in the society. Then the police will stop at nothing like using violence for clearance following "the people's will", swiftly ending the so-called "riot". It will all become "normal" in the next morning. Everyone has to squeeze into MTR trains getting to work, and some may also have to wait for several more trains in order to get onto the trains. Everybody has to buy their expensive lunch just as usual. They will respond with "I don't care about politics" or "politics has nothing to do with me" if you tell them it is all because of CEPA, and you can never communicate with them. Some may even respond with the brainwashing sentence, “Hong Kong is already over if Beijing didn't look after you all!”, which they accepted without thinking, just like what the "locusts" from mainland China said. Therefore, Taiwanese deserves freedom. They live their lives with their souls, and you do not even deserve to be envious. Why Hongkongers are gradually becoming "sex slaves"? Blame yourself for not acting out.

While Taiwanese students were occupying the Legislative Yuan, the people outside said "don't worry, you are not alone." I was so touched that my eyes brimmed with tears when I listened that because there was a massive number of people backing behind the students. People were working hard spreading the news to break through the news blackout. They were rustling the materials up, cheering the students up, and resisting, surrounding, holding and bargaining with the police outside the Legislative Yuan. On the other hand, there were voluntary lawyers and doctors willing to provide support, aiming to get everything done in order to let the protesters concentrate in the occupation without being distracted by the trivial matters. I became quite emotional because this sentence does represent the near end of the protesters in Hong Kong. It implies that someone is going to take the glory on behalf of the protesters, or plot against the protesters by initiating a motion in the LegCo for denouncing the violence...

Meanwhile, those old chums who initiated "Occupy Central with Love and Peace" in Hong Kong spotted Taiwanese's glory and shamelessly took advantage of the Taiwanese protesters. Hongkongers were urging Taiwanese with their failure that Taiwanese should not "let Taiwan becomes another Hong Kong", but meanwhile those old chums were just taking advantage, saying that Taiwanese's non-violent protest was inspired by Occupy Central. How shameless it is! Among those old chums, there are people like the so-called star teacher of liberal studies, Yip Yat-chee, to escort the movement. Yip typed a bunch of nonsense words for absolving their foolish Occupy Central on Facebook. He used a straw man trick to prettify that Occupy Central, which did not contribute any to the society, with Taiwan's genuine occupation, saying "Occupy Central is the first occupy movement in Hong Kong". He cannot even differentiate between "occupation" and "surrender". How dare he call himself a star teacher of liberal studies! Haha, what a great joke!

Men possess the survival instincts of animals. Food have their value only if they look tasty. Hongkongers hate conflicts and politics; leftist morons tolerate the mainland travellers from Individual Visit Scheme, and Neocolonialism; traitors sprawl their legs letting the red capital to rape Hong Kong. The pan-democracy camp looks rejecting yet attracting to the Shanghai journey, asking for presenting themselves before higher officials. All of the individuals and groups listed above are food. Staying in a big pot of hopelessness, they enjoy soaking themselves in the soup of PRNN to make themselves tasting good and looking fine, and hastily sell themselves to those who are going to swallow them. What a terrible scene! No doubt it is a horror film.

If we do not want to be embroiled by these "food", we must spare no effort to fight against the traitors, including pan-democrats, leftist morons and social movement abusers, together with the communists, otherwise we will not have any chance to live.

P.S. PRNN = Peace, Rational, Non-violence and Non-profanity
        CEPA = Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement

(Photo: Passion Times)

Yip: Taiwan youth slapped Occupy Central in the face

Taiwan youth slapped Occupy Central in the face

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by 葉政淳 (Yip Ching-shun)

Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-19-2014/11652 

Taiwan students protest against Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA), and took over the Legislative Yuan successfully. Some 200 people asked to put CSSTA on the backburner (which the motion, according to the Rule of Procedure, was automatically carried), and deliberate each and every terms and conditions one by one. They also demanded an apology from President Ma Ying-jeou. The fury could not be stopped. Some people outside chanted slogans and pulled the entrance gate, while some climbed into the 1st floor of the legislature through their own aerial ladders. It seems that they are demonstrating to Hong Kong the genuine meaning of 'occupation'. The scenes outside the Yuan was comparable to that of inside. It is said that the policemen tried to enter by force, but were impeded by students with strong will. Students removed heavy chairs to block the entrace from policemen's attack. Before they shut the door, they had sent all their materials and food as if they were trained for a long time.

Are there any deliberation before such organised movement? I believe so. Of course, there are rapports among different activists. At the same time, the three masterminds of Occupy Central (OC) announced a "Non-violent Confrontation Drills Camp" on Facebook, and the participants shall be restricted to those who signed the Letter of Intent of OC. Before this, Prof Joseph Cheng was interviewed by radio station D100. He said, "OC is just a nominal confrontation, and cannot change the fact that there is no democracy. So what should we do? In fact, we can only wait for changes from China." And they also trained Democrats to intimidate policemen through evil eyes. By seeing such ridiculous acts, we can spot the difference obviously. There are lots of doubts and taunts to such ludicrous act. We felt that our anger is somehow relieved when we see the way Taiwanese youth act slapped these OC gadflies in the face.

Nothing decent is done since the announcement of OC! Deliberation on how to deliberate, on when to deliberate, on how to raise funds, on the use after raising funds.... the story goes on and on. And to have electronic referendum as spendthrifts. You motherfuckers! The genuine occupation by the Taiwanese youth are so clear cut, and the interlocutors are all youngsters and students. You middle-aged gadflies are so brazen-faced as you are dogs in the manger! OC has become neither shit nor shinola, but what don't they admit they have taken the erroneous path?

The answer is the Democratic Party. They participate in OC, saying they want universal suffrage even at the expense of being jailed, but dare not to stand out for civil nomination, against institution nomination! They had backroom deals with the Communist Party back in the Liaison Office before they betray voters! They even put a victory hand gesture and grinned when they support Kevin Lau, the former Chief Editor of Ming Pao. YOU GOT THE ANSWER!

Without a crystal ball, you can tell the political reform for 2017 by the government will certainly be passed, and the day when "one-person-one-vote" election with Communist screening candidates will come by. This is Hongkongers' last chance, don't ever dream of these 'pseudo-democrats' will fight for genuine democracy. If you don't galantly occupy like Taiwanese students when the motion will be voted, you won't be able to occupy anything. Take it, those who are still asleep!