Atsuna: Why Do Chinese Suffer From Global Discrimination?

Why Do Chinese Suffer From Global Discrimination?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Atsuna
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/02-25-2015/21402 

(Reads: Arrogant locusts; not considerate, get lost!)
(Source: aTV)

Chinese people are good at “the pot calling the kettle black”.

Such country (which “rule by law” is above all) is more than eager to teach Hongkongers “rule of law”. The party is above the country; politics supersedes everything in China; yet they are criticising Hong Kong being ‘over-politicised’. The incident of Eugenia Ye, the failed proposed social secretary of Smarties (HKUSU), was criticised as ‘politicising universities’; combatting smugglers in Shatin and Tuen Mun was criticised as ‘political stance superseding rationality’. Later, condemnations towards urination or defecation might be criticised as being too ‘politicised’.

It would be too troublesome if everything has to be politicised. But CCP treats Hong Kong as a colony (though dare not to admit), and HKSARG plans to betray Hong Kong under its manipulation, being politicises is actually a way to protect ourselves. Chinese people felt otherwise, because the Newspeak of CCP does not only abbreviate things, but also distort meaning of words. "Wenming" (文明) is not being civilised, but rather not to be “locusts”; "lingdao" (領導) has nothing to do with leadership, but chiefs who can earn extra benefits and bribes; so, “politicised” does not really matter to political stances, but rather, a synonym of “discriminating we Chinese”.

There are a lot of rich people, and they are not stingy at all. But they might wonder, “Why am I hailed in China when I spend a lot, but despised in anywhere else?” Some rules are implicated when you want to earn money in China – the core one being “having guanxi”. If you want to have guanxi, you flatter your superior. They are well-trained as they are guanxi masters when they drink a lot. Hongkongers lose in this aspect. But when they are out of such jungle of money, they know few about the real world.

They don’t know why Tibet is poor but westerners still welcome Dalai Lama; why Japanese are always reporting the adulterated food; why Hongkongers are not accommodating enough to allow them to urinate and defecate. They live in a country where normal logic does not work. When you are censored in every aspect, all common sense are no longer common. Democracy, human rights, rule of law, public hygiene, transaction are not almsgiving – they might have heard of these but might not understand. So they cover up their ignorance with void reasons. So even if China rises, they might be the most susceptible Hercules. If you disagree with them or say something they can’t understand, “it’s discrimination”.

In the Shatin anti-smuggler protest, Ms Chen from Shenzhen said that those who oppose smugglers are “angry teens” (fenqing 憤青), and those who oppose Individual Visit Scheme are miso-affluent. She does not know the GDP per capita of China is 7 000 USD, but that of Hong Kong is 38 000 USD. During the Umbrella Revolution, Chinese ate their melon seeds inside the “GFW” and said “these are schemes by foreign forces”. You have to know, ignorant people like to express their views too, but they just don’t know what they are talking about.

Atsuna: Commoners Can Be Accomplices of The Authoritarians Too

Atsuna: Commoners Can Be Accomplices of The Authoritarians Too

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Atsuna
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/02-14-2015/21191 

If the "political correctness" indoctrinated to the minds of some Hong Kong or Taiwan celebrities, they will be backfired by those mainland "fans". Chapman To once said in his Facebook page, "Some unreasonable mainland netizens were born in the 1990s, those "fans" of celebs should be youngsters who should be supporting their idols unfailingly. Or at least in normal countries, they should be those least interested in politics. Although there were many student campaigns in the track of history, they criticised the authority. Chinese youths are more peculiar, mentioning the national interests all the time and linking the party's interests to themselves.

Arthur Schöpenhauer once said, "The cheapest sort of pride is national pride, for if a man is proud of his nation, he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud. Otherwise, he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can [be proud adopts], as a last resort, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, this reimbursing himself for his own inferiority."

So it is more than understandable when Chinese youth can turn a blind eye on things like Liu Xiaobo and Chen Guangcheng. Be calm over injustice (such as illegal land acquisition by the government, using backdoor 'guanxi' benefit their jobs or studies and be utterly patriotic than the Blue Ribbon thugs. The silence is finally broken -- to defend for the national interests. Sort of a compensating, isn't it? But they simply stop thinking and let the party decide on what to speak.

In Zhang Yihe's book. She wrote, "A scholar thinks that, 'If the subjects follow and get used to the method of thinking pig the rulers, then they are accomplices." Chinese get hysteric when they heard Taiwan independence, Hong Kong independence, Tibet independence, or Xinjiang independence. They do not even ask why. If some people even dare not to curry CCP's favours, such as putting a cap on IVS, they just became the "spokespersons of the Chinese Foreign Ministry" with evil faces. Their "enthusiastic attachment" to politics are but beyond one's imagination. It is hard to imagine they live in a country where "Communist Party" becomes a banned searching keyword on Baidu.

Milk formula? Poison. School buildings? Jerry-built. High-speed rail? High-speed accidents. Money and Guanxi? All fixed. People's lives are under the "Russian Roulette", depending on one's luck. Youngsters know the corruption of the country, and the problems in the Communist Party, but when the national interests is involved (high-rank officlas' interests, to be specific), they get "untied". People say "Where they sit affects how they think", but in Chinese logic, leaders decide how the people think. Or else why commoners think of the national interests all the time as if they were cadres?

So stop saying Chinese tourists are commoners. Ask them their views on TWI or HKI, or curb on IVS. You will know they are "accomplices", as Zhang said. When there are disasters upon Hong Kong, Chinese netizens enjoy a lot with Schadenfreude. Leftards are pinpointing at "fascist Hongkongers", but why did they turn a blind eye to hate speech from the Chinese people? Wouldn't it be too scoundrel?

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.

Atsuna: Why aren't there disciplinary teachers in universities?

Why aren't there disciplinary teachers in universities?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Atsuna
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/11-13-2014/19655 

At the recent Commencement Ceremony of Baptist University of Hong Kong (HKBU),  the Vice-chancellor (VC), Albert CHAN Sun-chi, refused to hand out graduation certificates to students who held up yellow umbrellas on stage. He told them they should "respect themselves".

As a CPPCC deputy, Chan believes there should be "big principles" by which a school develops itself. But should this "principle" be one of "illustrating illustrious virtue", or following instructions from the Communist Party like a flunkey? No wonder Confucius said, “Men of antiquity studied to improve themselves, men today study to impress others.” Now when it comes to getting education, acquiring knowledge plays second fiddle to learning how to make concessionary steps and to mentally "castrate oneself as if he is a eunuch".

After the ceremony, HKBU issued a statement saying participants should respect the views of others who were in attendance.. Tang Fei, the chairman of the HKFEW (a pro-China educationalist federation), said students should not deliberately embarrass other parties, as this was not behavior expected of people who had received higher education.

I do not know how can holding an umbrella be "not respecting those at the scene" nor understand how this embarrassed Albert Chan. Is he physically disabled? Moreover, exactly because students have received higher education, they should not tighten their lips and "consider the faces of the seniors". This might be a "solemn" response, but it is just hypocrites who go with the flow. Albert Tam, a fiction writer, says: "It is a VC's responsibility, not right, to hand the certificate to students. Students can refuse to receive it, but if the VC refuses to hand the certificate to them - then he's not doing his job."

Yet, many Hongkongers are "villagers" who are a long way to being mature, and who are afraid of the "crime” of being disobedient. They believe those "adults" who have the say are always right, and blame those "bad kids" who dare to challenge the authorities. In a society like this, a university might then need disciplinary teachers to nit-pick students on Facebook when they use foul language, or to withdraw the right of graduates to receive their certificate if they make a silent statement on stage.

And if that is still not enough? Better learn from the vast piece of land across the border! Liaoning Daily, a CCP mouthpiece, issued an open letter to all university teachers in China, entitled Teachers, Please Do Not Say China in This Way after a "decoy operation" in the classrooms of 20 universities in Shenyang, Beijing, Wuhan, Guangzhou, Shanghai etc that lasted over two weeks. They reported that they found out most teachers acclaimed the separation of powers in the west, and treated "not entering the party" as a stylish thing. The editor wrote: "Being pessimistic should never be the 'main rhythm' of a mature society." But the reality says otherwise. The more mature a democratic society is, the more pessimistic criticism it will hear. In exuberant authoritarian states, on the other hand, you are bombarded by one-sided praise.

The end of the article asked teachers to "treat China well", because students were "sunflowers" who faced and listened to their teachers as the sun. HKBU and PolyU are just treating undergrads as secondary school students, while the place above Hong Kong is even blatantly treating them as primary school students who just happen to inhabit adult bodies. Because in their eyes, university is just a place to get a certificate. Their view is that students who are eager to learn just care about marks and grades because these will determine whether they can go on to a PhD or a successful career. They care little wether you are brave or charismatic.

Merely emphasising that "undergrads are just students", but not treating them as individuals in a fair manner, is the consequence of a place with the wrong ‘metabolism. Students should not listen to these Colonel Blimps.

Wing Wing: "Flunkies of British" and "Noble Chinese Citizens"

"Flunkies of British" and "Noble Chinese Citizens"

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Vivian L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/09-18-2014/18844 

(Photo: PassionTimes)

A few days ago, I saw a piece of news on CableTV: There is a shortage of regular ambulances in China, so there are many "illegal ambulances" sending patients to the hospital. These ambulances are owned by private operators, and passengers have to call them and PAY for their service. By saying "sending", I mean, these ambulances are merely metal boxes on four wheels with hardly any life-saving equipment. It also reported a deadly incident where the gas pipe of an "illegal ambulance" was broken, leaking carbon monoxide and killing all four passengers on board.

Many Chinese often say, "We China have stood up!", and criticise HKers: "You don't see yourselves as Chinese, but often mention Britain and so on... Haha! You are all flunkies of British people!" True indeed? We "flunkies" enjoyed one of the best ambulance service in the world under British rule. We do not need to bribe ambulancemen before using an ambulance. Patients would not have their oxygen pipes removed and be kicked out of the hospital if they could not afford the fees. We do not need to pay "red packets" to doctors and nurses before having doctors' and nurses' care.

True, before 1997, the British were somewhat privileged, but they also satisfied the basic needs of grassroots. Hawker centre, Dai-pai-dongs (cooked-food stalls), and shopping centres in housing estates used to sell food and daily necessities at affordable prices. Those public facilities were also places where grassroots gathered. Public housing estates built in the colonial era had sufficient spaces, adequate ventilation and good daylight-capturing, making homes comfy. Since the 1970s, six years of free education had started in HK, and was expanded to nine years in 1980s. No matter how poor you are, as long as you excel in school, there are all sorts of public funds, subsides and scholarships to help you along. Eventually you can be successful.

Even the rights of poorest people among the "flunkies of British people" were respected. With the living environment and basic needs were well cared for, people could move upward and be socially mobile. But what about these "Noble Chinese Citizens"? They have to bribe their way to an ambulance when their lives are in jeopardy; rich people cannot get hold of safe infant formula in China for their young; those who protect their homes will be ran over by bulldozers because they are "obstacles to development".

Whatever names they have for us, be it "flunkies", "dogs", or "bastards" -- a fact is still a fact: who would rather be a "Noble Chinese Citizen" if they can choose on their own?

Law: Impossible for China to Have a Democratic Regime

Impossible for China to Have a Democratic Regime

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by 羅沛霖 (Law Pui-lam)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/09-10-2014/18765 

(Photo: Naixi Village in Beijing, which sounds the same in Cantonese as "Cunnilingus Village")
(Photo source: www.bjnxc.cn )

For decades, the "democratic-reunificationists" in Hong Kong have been chanting slogan in a futile manner, and never did it delve into the democratic development in China. The society of China simply cannot foster a democratic regime, of which this judgement is based on an investigation into a village election in China.

In 1999, the very first round of election among villages was held in the Guangdong province. By "one person, one vote", the committee was elected to take responsibility of managing the social and economic affairs for the village. Besides the right to vote, villagers can be elected as well. It was clearly stated that even if villagers are not nominated by the Villagers Nomination Committee as candidates, they will not be excluded the right to participate in the election, whereas the Branch Party Secretary and other posts were assigned directly by the Communist Party as usual. As for the village of my study object, it was a "trial spot", where the village election was carried one year before 1999.

In that village, all kinds of matters (e.g. selling lands, building factories, introducing FDI, building roads, executing policies from the central authorities) were controlled by the Party members originally, especially the Branch Party Secretary, who had hence brought a great deal of fortune within his family. Some villagers told me his "visible assets" (properties and flats) by the time were worth approximately 500 million RMB (1998, ~60 million USD). 

It was learnt that the secretary wanted to grasp the social and economic resources, so he decided to take part in that election. Yet many villagers, if not all, regarded this election as a hopeful one to elect a committee chairman against the secretary and for the reallocation of resources.

There's no reasons for me even back then not understanding what the function of election to CCP: a means to pacify the conflicts in the rural society brought by Reform and Opening Up. Yet I did see it as a precious chance to let the mainland society get onto the path towards democracy, however, it remains an unreasonable dream after all.

In the beginning there were villagers studying the regulation of election, attempting to figure out the methods to ensure nomination of their preferable candidates and ways of canvassing, even the preparation avoiding interference during the election processes. All of these made me feel that the crux of a democratic election is well-known in a village where such election never exist. I thought it was brought by the power of a free market, and I believed in the logic "economic reform will bring about changes in society, culture and politics" on China. But when I tried to understand more in their views, what I found happened to be another story and logic.

"When election takes place, we must vote for the members of our own clan (family members within some generations) regardless of their capabilities. Eventually, he is from our clan! He will surely help if anything happens to our family." This is what a young villager told me -- well, in fact, all villagers believed in such logic. It never comes to the villagers to elect someone with competency, because this one with ability, in their minds, will only make benefit within one's own clan and no advantages will be there for other villagers - just like the Branch Party Secretary and his clan.

Clans were there in villages rather than societies!

I later found out that "clan" relationship has been the deepest interpersonal relationship in mainland China. Since the CCP has taken over it, they changed the game rule of resource allocation: focus shifted from economic resources to political ones. The riches were lambasted with their properties and land confiscated. Politically they became the rags. This is not a sole change of personal status, but involved the entire family, or some referred it as clan. Let me put it this way, landlords and rich peasants or the elites in the past can only marry those with the same "political status". Clan, as it always do. It's just a matter of forms.

The game rule of CCP is merely reshuffling the social status of clans. A series of anti-feudalism political campaigns (from Land Reform to People's Commune to Cultural Revolution) were just suppressing the tradition, but not successful in faltering the traditional clansmen-ship. On the contrary, the rule of CCP is just a continuation of such "deep interpersonal relationship" which has last for thousands of years.

The election that year clearly showed the role of such traditional clansmen-ship. The secretary and another candidate made full use of their families to canvass. It is simple enough - if they can get the nod from the elders in the clan, they can get support from almost all of that clan. The secretary used his money and authority to benefit a few big clan, which enables himself of making much more supporters than the other candidates. That's why he won, not surprisingly, and became the chief of the Village Committee. Besides his political authorities, he kept on controlling the economic and social development of the village.

The secretary had gained himself with quite some numbers of "haters" before the election, but eventually these people still voted for him! I interviewed a few who once criticised him being greasy in terms of money and authority. But many of those had the same reason – the "satiated tiger, hungry wolf" theory.

The logic of clansmen culture made them feel that no matter who becomes the chairman of the committee, he will only look after his own clan without paying attention to the livelihood of the rest as a whole. This haven't even entered the core thought of them. Deep inside they possessed a thinking that for the other candidates who have not been controlling the resources will be like "hungry wolves" if elected, becoming more corrupted than those "satiated tigers". And to vote for a "hungry wolf" without any relationship with one's own clan, one will be more likely to suffer.

This "tiger-or-wolf" logic concludes the village-level politics in China.

More than 70 years earlier, such situation was already analysed by a famous Chinese anthropologist Fei Xiaotong. He pointed out that in the West, a person can have different identities at the same time – a scout member, a Methodist follower, a member of a party, a father in a family and etc. But in Chinese villages, people have one and only one identity – a part of the clan. In decades, the framework of rural interpersonal network has remained dominant.

A few years ago, I went back to that village again and saw how the following elections proceed – it's pretty much the same.

Rural politics can be seen as the epitome of the politics of China. In Chinese society, you'll not find possible to "detach" the identity of a part of a certain clan. When it comes to Buddhist temples, schools, colleges, relationship and seniority, "clan" is always included, let alone the CCP or PLA. There is no more existence of "friendships" in mainland China. They're replaced by calling each other "xiongdi" (brothers), or else they are not in the same clan. In other words, if two are real friends, then the "friendship" must be turned into "clansmen-ship", like that they're from the same family.

Wang Mingming, another anthropologist in China, belongs to Fei Xiaotong's clan. Although he was found plagiarism for tens of thousands of words in his publication, Fei's clan saved him by every means from being fired by the university. In the Chinese academia, such "clan-like" interpersonal relationship is just about guanxi, but not rights and wrongs, not to mention academic credibility.

The deplorable nature exists in Chinese academia, and no doubt there is even a higher degree of it in the party inside. How can it not make sense for commoners to understand Xi's anti-corruption acts as starting a turf war with "tiger-or-wolf" logic? It has already been told, by nature, that never has such moves been relevant to some sort of social justice. 

With the despotic one-and-only presence of "clan-like" relationship, mainland China can only be far from the civil-minded society where people dare to distinguish rights and wrongs regardless of getting into deadly accusations. Democratic regime for China stays, if no significant changes, impossible. 

Astrophel Lim: Reflections on 817: Anti-Occupy Central Is But Lies Within Lies

Reflections on 817: Anti-Occupy Central Is But Lies Within Lies

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 林非 (Astrophel Lim)
Original: http://astrophellic.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/謊言在謊言之上-817-黑筆記事/ 

How many turned out in Sunday's (Aug 17) Anti-Occupy Central march? Organiser Robert Chow Yung spoke his heart afterwards: Numbers don't matter. Such a contrast with Chow's previous bluff claiming to stage a rally with "the biggest turnout in record history". Promotional gimmicks, after all.

From the morning run for democracy to the afternoon march against Occupy Central, the anti-Occupy campaign was a mimicry to turn the Occupiers' weapons against themselves, played out at its finest. The pan-democrats said they represent Hong Kong people's will? Look, we do too! We speak for an even bigger majority!

On the surface, Chow's mass campaigning is just a replica of what the pan-democrats have been doing all along. In reality, the support from the dense array of native-place societies, united front associations and pro-Beijing companies that were showered upon the anti-Occupy campaign is simply out of the pan-democrats' league. Public transports that used to shy away from political advertisements have now made way for the anti-Occupy promotion. Double standard in broad daylight! In fact, it is an efficient tactic on the part of the pro-government camp. Just lobby a few movers and shakers in the corporate circle and have them use their own resources to mobilise their vast number of employees, and the rest is easy. Soliciting the support from these big players proves much more cost effective than working up the average Joes and Janes. Because more often than not, intangible benefits are enough to win over people of power and stature. On a similar note, earlier when there was an outcry among Hong Kong's young accountants because of China's new law that put their jobs on the line, a couple of "solemn pledges" from some of the big names would have suffice to calm public sentiments.

Hong Kong's collective karma: The bystanders' crack of doom

Doing business has always been Hongkongers' priority. Their eyes are perpetually fixed on the carrot on the stick but--it pains one to admit--never on dignity of being human nor the question of justice in society. If justice had been our priority, the Law Society would not have been headed by the likes of Ambrose Lam in the first place. It took Lam's outrageous statement demeaning the entire legal profession for the society to pass a vote of no confidence against its president for the first time in 108 years. But why would that have been a "first" to begin with? Even when their jobs were in jeopardy because of China's fickle rules, have our bean counters learned their lesson yet? Have they decided to stand up for justice now? Society rewards members of professional services with stature and respect, only to falsely assume the recipients to possess the knowledge, aspiration and vision that match up to their name. The one thing Hong Kong is in grave need of is ideological aspiration: a rock-solid ideology for societal development and the base for its discussion. Many would be quick to abandon one's principles and beliefs for petty favours. Other so-called "scholars" and "professors" would not think twice to use their knowledge to manipulate and connive--ones such as Ho Lok-sum and Francis Lui Ting-ming.

So three groups of people formed the participants of the anti-Occupy Central rally: the average Joes who were mobilised by their superiors, the big players who stand to profit from the game, and the simpletons who had no real interest in whatever that is going on and had came only for the paltry charity. All they care could be as simple as a ticket to a meal, a visa to come shopping, or an alternative form of "tourism". In essence, these groups of people may not be at all different. All it takes for them to sell out their principles and beliefs could be trivial and minute for few would think much beyond the surface of things. To many who took part in the march, the equation might have been straightforward: they get a free meal, Hongkongers get to have the supposedly good "one person, one vote" universal suffrage—win-win. Or is it so?

In reality, if this vote, granted under the current electoral framework, gives the voters no real choices, what good is "having the vote"? North Korea has a universal suffrage election too, but would anyone say its people is granted free will to choose their leaders? Can the principle of "universal suffrage" be realised simply with "one person, one vote"? To the average Hongkongers, these things prove too much of a strain to process, and probably don't have a place in their households as people cannot see how these things could "make your spouse loves you more" [link in Chinese only].

Many participants of the anti-Occupy Central march had come under the pretence of "native-place societies", some were shipped to the march in buses hired by the organisers, still others told reporters flat out they had came to "shop". Among the "natives" of these native-place societies were members of the Hong Kong's ethnic minority. Many South Asians in Hong Kong may be living hand to mouth, a condition that might have prompted them to go to any lengths to make a little money (besides, going on a march is not against the law). On the other hand, it was the mainland Chinese who keep saying "blood is thicker than water" that contributed to such a scheme to sabotage Hong Kong's future for petty favours such as "shopping". These "individual cases" keep popping up, relentlessly undermining Hong Kong's de facto system. Even if dissidents shout at the top of their lungs, "Hong Kong people wants democracy," it would be like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that no one can be certain whether it's there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying mainland Chinese don't want democracy. In a society where a pall of corrupt air hung over people's heads, should it surprise anyone that reason would be a singularity?

You said nothing when houses are torn down, nothing when tap water smells like sewage, yet when Hongkongers argue over universal suffrage you rush over to protest against it? pic.twitter.com/mP4r9kgKAD 

— PervertedPepper (@remonwangxt) August 17, 2014

The stupidity demonstrated by anti-Occupy Central probably shows us what an Ebola outbreak would look like in Hong Kong. A long standing political non-participation has deprived Hongkongers of the will to hold on to an ideology and the ability to envision on a societal perspective. What makes a better society? What makes something good or bad, right or wrong? None of these matters to the city dwellers. In this respect such mentality is not much different to the Chinese north of the border, "I no care who is president. I live good I'm happy."

When they see the chengguan (China's much-hated local cops) beating up innocent people, their perception of the problem ends at violence being wrong, failing to recognise the larger phenomenon behind the brutality. Similarly, when the pro-democracy camp put forward the Occupy Central movement, they only see the "occupy" part of the equation, without understanding the "why" behind.

Hongkongers like to abuse the notion of "neutrality" [link in Chinese only]. But in effect, playing the "neutral" party often is just the same as sitting on the sidelines while Gian bullies Nobi.

Gian bullies Nobi. Whose side are you on?
(Source: https://www.facebook.com/nagee.tw/photos/a.10151409298917312.1073741829.353390642311/10151970990337312/?type=1; Translation by HKCT)


What has been dominating the pro-democracy discourse over the years are none other than terms like "value", "ideology", "justice", "fairness" parroted by Hongkongers without them actually taking root in people's lives. This is why "one person, one vote" can take the place of the principle of universal suffrage; a hollow slogan "for peace and universal suffrage" can mask Beijing's intention the screen out "unfavourable" candidates; a black thumbs down for "oppose violence" can wipe away the brutal violence of the system that favours the privileged class, and accuse the repressed of being violent.

Lies within lies

The actual figure of the anti-Occupy day turnout is of no significance. Rather, the anti-Occupy movement signifies that our government has relinquished the principle of "political neutrality" when virtually the whole administration has rallied to the movement. And to the core organisers and advocates of the campaign, the success of the march serves as their bargaining chips to seek rewards from Beijing.

In fact, no matter the actual turnout, it will just be reduced to a figure on a page. Whether it is July 1st or August 17th, Beijing officials would not have come to witness the scene in person anyway. They would have to rely on "middlemen" to deliver the message. And it's only natural that these middlemen would play a little trickery to scrape more favours within the power hierarchy. Be it a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand, China will not budge. You say the pro-establishment camp has gone to extreme lengths to "appeal" to march-goers? Yet we are all certain of one thing, even if they get hold of the truest figure, everyone knows the numbers would have been inflated. But anyhow, the figure is not to be mistook for any real public opinions but a demonstration of force. They would not have cared. As far as political operation is concerned, the existence of a "march" is enough to adorn their own narratives. So when news of the event arrives at the Chinese officials, the number would have easily been magnified to hundreds of thousand of citizens took to the street "on their own accord".

In the eyes of the communist party, what is our humble existence to match wits with the great master of fraudulence? Speaking of art of practising fraud, our humble existence is perhaps nothing more than a witless preschooler compared to the master. Beijing officials are clear how the figure was conjured up. The march was but "an example to the public of Hong Kong" and "a means to elicit internal conflict among the people of Hong Kong". But why? What for? Even Beijing itself can't make head or tail of the whole conundrum.  Once again, Democratic Party is in dialogues with Beijing's man. When the current atmosphere suggests a "50-50 split between pro-democracy and pro-Beijing camps" and "whoever has the gold makes the rule", even the strongest of characters would find it hard to stand their ground.

Robert Chow and his centrist band of campaigners, the Hong Kong government, and the Chinese officials are all sure of the actual state of affairs, and they are sure these people mobilised by the campaign did not come because of an ideological aspiration, and they are sure what the campaign rallied for would do more harm than good. They all knew from the bottom of their hearts. But for the sake of their own interests both political and monetary, none of these should matter. In fact, it comes as no surprise that the whole generation of 1950s and 60s should think like this. Like Chow, his must have known that his project has done Hong Kong more harm than good. If he had truly believed what he is advocating for, if his gut told him a genuine universal suffrage that is fair and open would be possible under the rule of the Chinese commies, and that Hong Kong would be headed for a brighter future, why then, is his holding on for dear life to his British passport? [Translation note: In an earlier interview, Chow had denied holding a British passport, but admitted having the right of abode in Britain, which he claimed to be working with his lawyer to renounce.] 

On the same token, why are the families and children of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor stuck in Britain and deprived of such hopeful future in Hong Kong? So they all have told blatant lies without batting an eye because of what that they stand to benefit from the injustice and dirty politics they sustain. Yes, they have known all this time they are breeding injustice. If it's any consolation, let us be reminded that to do wrong with the knowledge of being in the wrong is an unpardonable sin. In essence, their sins are no different to that of the Nazis during World War II. Behind the impressive slogans and the extermination camps that were set outside of German soil, the Nazis made sure Germans bore no witness to their cruelty.

Ever since the handover, Hong Kong has inevitably found itself en route to a grim future. This is due, for one, to China's invasion and colonisation of the city; for other, the cynical ignorance and fixation on sops on the part of Hongkongers. Since its early days, the post-handover HKSAR has had a bad track record. From the Provisional Legislative Council and the dissolution of two municipal councils during the first years, to the sleazy tactics to mobilise people against people, officials rallying for a political course "in a personal capacity", and public money and devices being used to spread a propaganda of today, all indications are that the downward spiral our city is already on will only go on.

Many born in the 1950s and 60s regard politics as something to be avoided. They seek no knowledge nor involvement in such affairs. With a fixation on petty interests and an indifferent attitude, they were happy amassing fortunes in the last twenty years of colonial times. Today's top men in the power hierarchy do not earn their seats with astute abilities nor a singular vision, but by skills that comprise abandoning one's principles and trimming one's sails to the wind. This aspiration to "climb the ladder" has not failed to recruit supporters from the new generation, many of whom make up the proponents of the conservative camps.

In an environment as such, the post-80s generation is doomed to be a peculiar kind. They have had the final glimpse of prosperity and grace of Hong Kong under colonial rule. They have also witnessed the descend from grace into calamity. They are the victims in a society increasingly disparate between classes, forgotten and outcast. No one knows how long this age of darkness is going to last. But the days of the Chinese commies might not be long. And who's to say the Chinese who are just as shortsighted might not overthrow the Chinese government? Populate with people who lack the capability to reason, and who are more concerned with clique membership than with proper judgement, where will this nation be headed? These are not things one can be optimistic about.

To quote ST Chow: "The percentage vote share of the pan-democrats has gone from 66.12% in 1998 to 56.24% in 2012. Eliminating the votes secured by 'non-allies' League of Social Democrats and People Power, the pan-democrats register a lowly 41.55%." And we can expect the percentage to sink even lower. In the face of the opponent's robust network to mobilise an infinite supply of people and resources, and their own sinking vote share, the pan-democrats are more pathetic than the polar bears that had died of exhaustion trying to swim their way to an ice floe—at least the bears tried.

Atsuna: Why Is China Raising A Generation of Brats?

Why Is China Raising A Generation of Brats?

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 假啞港女 (Atsuna)

Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/08-05-2014/18208 

Please like our facebook page and support our work :)

A few years back, an article published on NetEase (link in Chinese), a popular news forum in China, drew attention to China’s new generation of spoiled children. Accompanied by a series of photographs, the article shows a Chinese mother and her spoiled son making a scene in public. The son is pictured crying and making a fuss demanding his mother to buy a toy. When the mother refuses, the son slaps his mother in the face and pulls at her hair to force his mother to give in. Then, a passerby, enraged by the son’s behaviour, tries to put a stop to it, only to be chastised by an angry “Go away!” from the son. As if he hasn’t had enough, the son then seizes his mother’s neck and tried to choke her with his small hand. The mother finally gives in.

Son chokes mother to demand new toy while passersby look on. (Source: NetEase)

Whenever I see children among Chinese tourists in Hong Kong, I can’t help but notice that they give off a certain vibe that is markedly different from children from other regions—a vibe of incivility and hostility.

Some may point the finger at the Chinese government’s one-child policy that irrevocably created a whole generation of spoiled only-children.

But single-child families are not scarce to find in Hong Kong and Japan. Why should incivility be an exclusive phenomenon among the children of China?

Funny enough, though, as pampering parents as the Chinese are, they are often quick to blame their own children for the petty crimes they commit. When caught eating in the public transport, “The kid’s hungry,” they say; when caught letting their kids potty in public, “Children can’t hold it,” is their excuse; when caught stealing little rubber ducks from an advertising display, they pout, “The kids want them,” as if they as parents are the innocent party [note 1].

Misbehaving children are not to be corrected; they are more useful that way as the Chinese parents’ scapegoat.

Many Hong Kong parents religiously believe that kids should start learning foreign languages as early as infancy because you will never sound native-like if you start learning older. The same goes for good manners. People never learn it quite the same if they don’t learn it young.

We may learn a thing or two about parenting in Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. In the 1980s, New York City’s crime rate was through the roof. To curtail the crime wave, the NYC mayor did not particularly focus on fighting violent crimes, instead, he put police efforts into cleaning up vandalising graffiti in police vehicles and combating minor crimes such as fare-beating on the New York subway. Eventually, the city saw a sharp decline in all kinds of crime. The story tells us that fighting crimes begins with the smallest of detail, in this case, altering the city into a context less conducive to crime.

The same applies to parenting. If a child is permitted to behave however atrociously as he she pleases—throwing excessive temper tantrums, littering, peeing and pooing in public and the likes—the child is bound to grow up into an obnoxious human being, or worse, someone who would choke his mother just to have a new toy.

The principle is easy enough to understand. But why are mainland Chinese parents so prone to spoiling their kids? Even the new wealthy Chinese families fail to raise good-mannered children. 

Earlier this year, a British young woman tells of her experience of working as a nanny for an ‘obscenely rich’ Hangzhou family, whose only son was ‘more than a little spoiled’. He would spit on her, and pick his nose and use her clothes as wipes. The nanny noted that the family once invited Hong Kong singers to perform for the son’s birthday party and the child sang on stage as his prearranged fans cheered on. He signed autographs and took pictures with them after the performance. It’s no wonder the child went cheeky with his teacher, “You’d better treat me nicely. I am a celebrity now.”

The inflated ego of this wealthy kid and the self-gratifying behaviour of zillions Chinese people actually have more in common than one would expect. The difference being that children of the newly rich like to wield their ostentatious power over the less fortunate, whereas the average Chinese countrymen like to instill in their children their own twisted sense of “fairness”.

The small city of Zhongxiang in Hubei province has been infamous for its students’ collective practice of cheating during the national college entrance exams. A few years ago, the province’s education department decided to crackdown the ill practice with new policies to eradicate cheating. But the move angered thousands of parents and students alike. An angry mob of parents even beat up the teachers invigilating the exams. They protested in fury, “We want fairness. There is no fairness if we’re not allowed to cheat!”

If that loses you, hear the Chinese logic explained in this parent’s comment, “Those kids whose families have money and powerful guanxi can just buy their way through the exams. Average families like us spend a fortune to buy the answers for our sons and daughters, only to have our cheating devices taken away because we don’t have no guanxi!”

If there were two sets of logic known to men, there would be two sets of fairness, one of which is fairness as the world knows it, the other is “fairness with Chinese characteristics”. 

The Chinese perceive the problem of a certain group of people being more privileged than others as “unfair” only because they themselves do not enjoy such privilege. Eric Hoffer had said, “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.” By the same token, to the Chinese mentality, “Fairness is the selfish man’s imitation of justice.”

China is not governed by rules that are set in stone, but rules that are very much implicit. As formidable as China is being the world's second largest economy, integrity is certainly not an ingredient of the country’s success.

The Basic Law promises that “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” is to remain unchanged for 50 years. But the promise needs not wait so long to be shattered by Beijing’s white paper released in June and the threat it implies.

When a country has no integrity, as Confucius taught, proprieties and music will not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded, and the people will not know how to move hand or foot. [note 2]

That is why Chinese people learned to become aggressive from a young age—because bullies don't get bullied, so long as you don't mess with a bigger bully.

Note:

[1] A pear-shaped advertising display made with 15,000 rubber ducks was on display in Shanghai for three days before the bath toys was practically stripped clean by visitors. (http://online.thatsmags.com/post/rubber-ducks-theft)

[2] From Lun Yu (The Analects of Confucius), “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.” (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lun_Yu/Book_13)

Wing Wing: The Japanese Toilet and the Chinese Crap

The Japanese Toilet and the Chinese Crap

Translated by Vivian L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-26-2014/18058 

I am told that an article by the name "Beijing University Student Embarrasses Japanese Reporter" has been a hit on the web since it came out a few years ago. [Translator note: The article, originally written in simplified Chinese, began to spread as early as 2010 among blogs and social media in mainland China. It is presumably an interview between a Japanese reporter and a female Peking University student. The article comes with a subtitle that reads, "Without the use of a single swear word, the heroine snubs the Japs, winning applause of all".] But I only saw it today on Facebook. Though it could very well be a fabricated story, still, there's something in it that's worth talking about. Amount of truth aside, the fact that the article has been so popular in the Chinese blogosphere may actually shred some light on the Chinese frame of mind.

What catches my attention the most is this particular dialogue: On the question of boycotting Japanese goods, the reporter asks the 'heroine' whether she has ever used a product made in Japan. She replies, "Yes, a toilet." On the sound of "toilet", her fellow students burst into laughter.

I can't help but wonder what is so funny about Japanese toilets. It is just hard to fathom why fully grown and well educated persons would find the mention of bodily functions of pee and poo funny. I would suppose, "Ooh, you pooped! HAHAHAHA!!!" is something I expect to hear from an innocent preschooler or a babbling toddler, even. But university students? Seriously?

Funnier still, if, for the sake of argument, the Japanese reporter retorted, "Oh right, of course. Our toilets don't explode." One thing for sure, the "heroine" would have succeeded in making an exhibition of herself.

A Japanese bidet-style toilet

(source: Tzuhsun Hsu via Flickr）

But my friend Joe Gei disagrees, "Nah, sarcasm isn't a Japanese virtue. A real Japanese person would probably say, 'Domo arigato gozaimasu, dear madam, for your kind patronage to our craftsmanship!'" That's right, this might just add to the Chinese's humiliation.

The Beijing student might have assumed that making toilets is a disgraceful business and that using a toilet made in Japan would automatically bring shame and ridicule to the nation of Japan. But is it shame that is on the Japanese people's mind? It's perhaps anything but shame. The Japanese probably consider it a national pride that their exquisite technology has perfected toilet experiences of customers overseas. The business of making and selling toilets is probably something the Japanese are proud of. And they are rightly so. The Japanese toilet has now won over a wide fan base across the globe because of its superior quality.  But the Chinese mistake that being a customer of the Japanese-made toilet would humiliate its maker. They fail to realise that in doing so, the only people humiliated are themselves.

Back to the article. There is an idea carried throughout the piece—"Japanese runts are despicable":

The Japs don't face up to history. The Japs claim they own Diaoyu Islands? To hell with their crap! The islands have been a part of Chinese territory "since ancient times"! 

Watching the Chinese argue indignantly without any grounds is quite a spectacle. So China, go show the Japanese who's boss. Go to war with Japan! Economic sanctions at the very least!

Canon: Capturing every boycott Japan moment

But the Chinese way of intimidation is quite an unfortunate irony in itself. Pictured above is a Chinese anti-Japan protester carrying a Canon—a Japanese brand—camera around his neck. And earlier this year, the Japanese embassy in Shanghai issued a record high number of visas to Chinese nationals wishing to visit Japan. The latest statistics reveals that Japan has emerged as the most desired destination for Chinese tourists. There has even been an incident when a mob of Chinese holidaymakers became so busy stocking up Japanese brand rice cookers at the Kansai International Airport souvenir shops that more flights back to China had to be delayed.

When Lu Xun's Ah Q gets beaten by random strangers, he says to himself, "A son beating his father. What the world is coming to nowadays!" This is Ah Q's way of achieving "spiritual victories".

The Chinese take it to the next level. When the Chinese feel "provoked" by the Japanese, they gnash their teeth in frustration and make up this so-called "interview" to feel good about themselves—as if in a kind of psychological masturbation—and delude themselves into a delirium of superiority. So the Chinese retaliate,  "What is the big deal about these Japs? They are nothing more than toilet makers. Look at me, it is I who poo on your toilet. Take that, you runts!"

More than 80 years have lapsed since Lu Xun's time, but the spirit of Ah Q lives on ever more vivaciously in the great nation of China.

Further reading:

(Note: The issues of toilets are in fact a serious matter. The World Toilet Organization (WTO) holds yearly summit to address the subject of toilet and sanitation. Members of the WTO come from 177 countries. The WTO has organized World Toilet Expo around the world in countries such as India, Singapore and South Korea.)

The World Toilet Organisation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Toilet_Organization

The World Toilet Summit 2013:
http://worldtoilet.org/media/photo-library/library-details/?paged=World%20Toilet%20Summit%202013

Gnimmm: No Holds Barred Even Cosplaying in Red Guards' Costume

No Holds Barred Even Cosplaying in Red Guards' Costume

Translated by Karen L., Edited by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Gnimmm
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/06/21/76008 

During World War II, rising Nazi in Germany had been committing crimes against humanity – the holocaust. Their costume, symbol and slogans has become taboos in Europe since the war was over. 

Facing the sin, German has made sincere apologies to the public for what they had done, insisting not to dwell with mistakes anymore and confining themselves to their moral rules. You won’t find yourself hearing any German making Nazis jokes. You won’t find portrait of Adolf Hitler hanging on the Brandenburg Gate. Distinct difference can be observed between Germany and those countries escaping from the past.

                                                                A graduation photo of some mainland Chinese graduates

It is an innocent idea of us assuming every student from mainland China was brainwashed given that their Chairman Mao’s figure is there reminding every second of the history. Those intellectuals moving from mainland China to Hong Kong acquaint the CCP’s bloodstained history as well as its achievements – the unstoppable ability to outperform most of the countries economically in 60 years, even the Great Britain in old times. The monitored Internet network combined with the shielded flow of information in mainland China is not sophisticated enough to block everything within the defensive wall. It is by no means graduates would have not known that the beloved personage Mao Zedong in their country was a ruffian and that communist party is a dreadfully extreme cult.

Some graduates in mainland China celebrated their graduation cosplaying themselves as Red Guards and class enemies in the struggle session. It’s an unlikely postulation towards their ignorance of Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square protests. Instead, a dégagé value would make more sense – let bygones be bygones. 

Pursuing the China dream, it is to know which way the wind blows. Thought of “Why so serious with the Red Guards’ outfit?” emblematise an interpretation of this dream, even if it’s a profoundly barbaric reminder to victims of the massacre. Those graduates on the photos surely do not settle in the classification of rare occurrence disrespecting the ones who suffered, but worse, their ideology as accomplices is in accord with the entire China's spirit – denying explicitly the carnage they brought.

CCP agitates patriotism, stirring waves of attacks on Japanese-based companies. The Chinese, virtually, is a exact opposite existence of rootlessness. It is to be expected that one having no ties with one's country and one without wisdom would not accept the country's attainments along with its blames, not to mention facing the history.

To them, the ten-year cultural catastrophe is the matter of their grandparents' generation; Tian'anmen Massacre is the matter of their parents' generation; today's China dominates the world in their generation, therefore what happened in the previous generations stay in the previous generations. Ancient history or today's community arouse no interest and concern in them, no matter it's Tang Dynasty's fascinating progress or the serious pollution problems nowadays.

Their national identities, even compared with Hongkongers, are vaguer. It's every man for himself in their minds, extending the western definition of individualism. This is how they are not feeling ashamed in Red Guards’ outfit. The weight of history and consciousness of the sense of shame are absent, and only money composes their lives.

That is why Chinese, if not all, aims to flee from China for a better future -- a secured livelihood and moneyhood.

Mao Zedong's Portrait hanging on Tian'anmen is an ignominious and bizarre presence to foreigners. But it's rather normal like any other decoration, no difference with a curtain on a certain wall to mainland Chinese. 

Amid Asian countries, Japanese would gnash their teeth over its nationality failures; Korean is a face-saving nationality, even sometimes it means to having unfair advantages; though the merry smile on those mainland Chinese graduates in red-star caps tells their numbness of their own land.

These must have been the "unworldly" picture of their minds:
The reflecting glory disperses as drifting clouds
Grudge comes to naught as soap bubbles
None of my business anyways
We’re men without a country

Favabean: Can Chinese Be Not Guilty for Institutional Mistakes?

50% Chinese Are Accomplices: Can They Be Not Guilty for Institutional Mistakes?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Fava Bean
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/05/11/72017 

(photo via cc Flickr user Jonathan Kos-Read)

Some people would like to say, CCP and innocent Chinese people shall be separated. I will only ask: A person cannot be responsible for an institution, but what about a group of people? Are they obliged to defend the institution?

Lu Xun decided to write rather than be a doctor a hundred years ago when he witnessed the indifference of Chinese when they saw their compatriots were killed by the Japanese. He then wrote a lot to criticise those flunkeys and morons, and these articles are still valid nowadays. Why? Because Chinese people had not improved over 100 years.

The writer of Frog, a novel about birth planning in China by Mo Yan, said the novel is a confession to his wife. He feared of losing his military position and forced his wife to abort. Is this the wrongs of the institution? Yes it is, but is it that an individual can get rid of all responsibilities when the institution wronged him/her? Quote Mo, "Most people are still in a society where people accuse their society and others. They magnify others' mistakes, and tell how they are suppressed by the society repeatedly . But few will act like Pa Kin (巴金) and Zhou Yang (周揚). They reflect upon themselves whether they had harmed others and themselves. Is it fair to pass the buck to a person when there is such a huge social catastrophe? It isn't. So in my opinion, if everyone does not go through a thorough reflection, if there will be another Cultural Revolution in the future, it will still be prevalent.

The writer of The Evil of Banality, Hannah Arendt once said, "Politically, subordination means support." (translated, cannot find original text) So, when there are people to defend for more than a half of Chinese, and ask people to separate the Chinese society and people, I must say you cannot blame all on the CCP. CCP just know how to take advantages from Chinese (industrious without blaming), and follow the inferiority of Chinese. What is the banality of evil? Not all Chinese are surnamed Lai [Translator's note: in Cantonese when one criticises a person surnamed Lai means the person often blame others]. We must admit that the hegemony of CCP is caused by at least half of the Chinese people, who are the accomplices.

Some Ukrainian protesters once said, "It is inborn for everyone in a democratic country to defend democracy." East European countries eventually get back their land after long time of authoritarian rule; Taiwanese can also fight for democracy beside the 'unificationist' KMT. Although the democratic institution is rather young in Taiwan with lots of rooms of improvement, but they are still improving. And Chinese, I hate people tarring with the same brush. Those who feel excited when they see Chinese activists, and say Chinese do also response actively, listen: Let me say there are ten thousand activists in China. How about other 1.39999 billion Chinese? Do they concern, or mock them?

At the end of the day, if they're happy, that's fine. Your democracy is by no means 'higher class' than the lifestyle they choose. Why bother seeking excuses for them?

Ching's Diatribe to Hong Kong: Officials and Whores

Ching's Diatribe to Hong Kong: Officials and Whores

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Ching Tip-yi (程蝶衣)
Original: Press here  

(Image by Tomas Castelazo via Wikimedia Commons)

What are the differences between high-ranking officials and whores?

Whores earn a living by using the mouth below. If it doesn't work, then they'll have to sell their behind.
Officials earn a living by using the mouth above. Whether it works or not, they'll have to sell their behinds.
Whores take personal things for public's use.
Officials take public things for personal use.
Whores definitely charge when they work.
Officials definitely charge no matter they work or not.
Whores won't reject mainlander patrons, as long as they pay enough money.
Officials won't treat Hongkongers as patrons, even though you pay all taxes.

高官同妓女既分別喺邊？
妓女用下面把口搵食，下面把口唔得就先要賣埋後面。
高官用上面把口搵食，上面把口得唔得都要賣埋後面。
妓女私器公用。
高官公器私用。
妓女做野一定要收錢。
高官做唔做野都一定要收錢。
妓女唔會唔做大陸人生意，只要你比足錢。
高官唔會做香港人生意，就算你交足税。

A Recent Viral Article: The Chinese-style Dignity

A Recent Viral Article: The Chinese-style Dignity

Translated by Choi Siu-wa, Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by Anon.
Original: http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA3MjA3NzMzNQ%3D%3D&mid=200699625&idx=3&sn=33aee17edd45144d974c9d342456a938 

[Translator's note: The story happens in China]

One of my university classmates took office as a town mayor of a county of near 100,000 population when he was 28, five years after graduation. Three years later, he was promoted to the head of the Propaganda Department of that county, and later the vice county executive with chauffeurs and chartered cars. He had strong political ambitions and took to it like a duck to water in the official circles. One year, I returned to China to visit him. The first question he asked me was, “Why don't you come back to China? There should be professional positions and opportunities that suit you better.”

“For living with my dignity,” I responded without second thought. He looked at me for a while with a baffled face but did not ask any further, instead, he asked his chauffeur to be on call and personally drove me to hang around the region where he worked and governed. “I haven't driven for many years. But today I'm your driver!” he joked. Although I understood that he meant “you are my special guest today”, I realised that he thought himself condescended to be a driver once I heard it. A driver is an inferior servant in his eyes.

We were always greeted by a crowd with obsequious smiles every time we arrived in a place. When we had a meal in a restaurant, the owner served us in person courteously in every possible way. I experienced the honour of a king's royal progress as if the donkey hide in the lion's skin, which I did not ever experienced in the US.

After the meal, he brought up the previous topic. He extolled me by saying that I would be even more successful than him if I stayed in China, and asked “Why do you think you don't live with dignity in China?”. I did not answer his question but asked if he would have such a courteous reception if someday he became a commoner. “I've never thought I will become a commoner in the future but if so, I guess I won't,” he responded. “Right, actually it is not necessary for you to be a commoner to experience the distinction between the dignity people have. The only thing you have to do is to change your perspective. Can you respect your drivers like you do with your seniors? The only difference between them is only the occupations," I said. He then frankly admitted that he couldn't, but he suddenly understood what I meant. "Even though I'm here like a boss, surely I'll just be a brown nose or even be deemed a flunkey if I go to the provincial capital or Beijing," he sighed.

Correct. In China, whether and how much a person is respected depend on your social status or wealth.

In the US, I am a typical commoner. I rarely have a feeling of being disrespected every place I go although my English is accented and not fluent, and I have a non-mainstream face. The only several times were from my compatriots and new immigrants. I have never been discriminated publicly in my personal experience whether it was a learning, working or consuming place; whether I dressed decently or dressed in rags. However, I feel disrespected and discriminated everywhere all the time in China because I do not dress expensively, I have a non-mainstream or superior accent, or I have a face like the poor. Some people say that the Americans are hypocrites that they do not act like they think. However, at least they are civilised to a certain degree that they will not belittle, discriminate against or even humiliate the others brazenly.

I also told my classmate that I have been proud to be the driver for myself and my family everyday, and sometimes I also drive my colleagues and friends. My boss or the boss of my boss often drive us to go out for a lunch. The mayor of the city I live in, even most of the ministers, congressmen and governors drive themselves to go to and get off work. They treat their drivers courteously even if they hire ones. The reasons are being respectful is the basic values in the western world and, on the other hand, the drivers have the votes.

Similar to my classmates in power, my wealthy classmate does not understand why it is hard for many people in China to live with dignity. When loopholes could still be found everywhere in China's economy and justice, he found his way to become rich in the real estate industry, which was a definitely profitable industry, through his special guanxi in the government department. When the moral standard in China started to fall to a level that people felt honourable to “update” their wives and keep mistresses, not only did he change his wife to a young and beautiful one following the trend, he also never concealed his mistress from his classmates and friends. He is hiring two domestic helpers and a chauffeur in his family now, which is a part of his way to demonstrate his wealth. In short, he always steps up with the times. He often sighs that it is only worth to born to be a man in China. Having such favourable turns in life, dignity is not a problem to him for sure.

The reason why the topic of “dignity” was raised is that he did not understand why I refused to come back to China. It was a gathering among our old classmates which my rich classmate treated us a meal in a restaurant. Once he waved his hand, four waiters approached him in swift steps and bowed to him when it was time to place an order. It was a special box with four waiters standing at the four corners and waiting for orders. He drove the waiters outside the door as he thought that it was not suitable for them to talk secret subjects with the waiters present. Everytime he wanted to place an order, what he needed to do was to wave his hand or shout towards the outside “waiter, one more menu!”, “waiter, drinks!”, “waiter, light the cigarette!” and so on. Moreover, he placed orders with a sonorous and forceful voice. Later, when he waved his hand again, he did not notice that there was a waiter holding a glass of beer behind him and preparing to hand it over to him. That glass of beer consequently was broken on the ground, and some beer was spilt on him. He glared at and scared the waiter. The waiter then apologised with a pale face. I was sitting aside with great interest “enjoying” how he acted in a prominent position like manoeuvring a big situation. I just could not imagine he was once a big boy who would have his face turned red when he saw girls, and would even cry his eyes out helplessly when his first lover was stolen. Money, it can turn a coward into a valiant.

When he eventually placed all the orders, I told him "I also served up and washed dishes in restaurant when I was studying in the US, but I have never been yelled by customers. I often delivered the wrong dishes to my customers as my English was poor back at that time but most of them threw me an understanding smile and asked for a change politely. Those diners who are more humourous thanked me for giving them a chance to taste a new dish. Moreover, they would give me extra tips if they were satisfied with my service." He stalled and did not say a word for a while. This made me thought that he was feeling guilty for his behavior. Unexpectedly, he said "It"s hard to get along in the US. Why don't you come back?".

This time it was my turn to stall. I realised that he was still insisting his thought that waiters are inferior to him, a wealthy person, leading to sympathise his old classmate who worked as a waiter. “I spend my money for service, and therefore it's part of their jobs to be ordered,” he said. I want to tell all rich men, however, you pay for the service but it only includes their responsibility to take orders, serve dishes up and put away plates gently. It does not include extra efforts to bear your arrogance, disrespect, belittling and even humiliation. In this society, people directly or indirectly provides service for the others regardless of what occupations they have, from Chairman and President to porters and cleaners. Different occupations are deemed superior or inferior just because of the unequal distribution of division of labour, opportunities and some other factors. The remunerations have already been realised by money and social status. There is no difference between the dignity of living as a man and the dignity of occupation.

People are born with dignity. In a normal society, one should be respected as long as he or she is a person. In China, however, one has to obtain his or her dignity by gaining something external, such as money, power or social status. This is why most of the people in this country climb towards the top by stepping on the others. They step on those of lower status, looting the dignity of them and at the same time enjoying it when they have climbed to a certain level. As the old Chinese saying goes, “Being an erudite is above all trades”. However, it is only a subjective view from the intellectual in ancient China. There is only “power and money are above all trades” throughout thousands of years.

Originally, living poor does not necessarily degrade a person; being humble does not necessarily deprive one's dignity; and being powerful does not necessarily equal to having dignity. There are many people who lives in poverty with dignity in the world, but in China, poverty does mean no dignity. This is where the Chinese saying “Poverty is more shameful than prostitution” sprouted from, and is the best explanation of the values that money is more important than dignity.

Actually it is not accurate to say that people living in China do not have dignity because those who lack dignity are only the ordinary people. Those who are powerful, influential and wealthy are not in lack of dignity. Government officials are superior while civilians are inferior, the upper class is superior while the lower class is inferior, and the rich is superior while the poor is inferior. This is what we call the Chinese-style dignity.

In the past decades, the Chinese government repeatedly mobilised its people to respond to the slogans, including "follow the examples of Lei Feng and do good deeds", "five demands, four beauties and three loves", "eight honour and eight disgrace", etc, in order to advocate the virtue of mutual love and respect. [Translator's note: These are empty slogans proposed by the CCP Propaganda Department; also refer to P.S.]. It turned out that these slogans, which people have been chanting since they were in kindergarten, could not stop the moral standard in China from lowering, and the trend that people live without dignity from developing. Our officials and moneybags took the lead turning "eight disgrace" into "eight honour". Our moneybags "followed" the example of Lei Feng that they donated money to the poor and the disaster victims so brazenly. Those who donated a certain amount of money even proudly had their names listed in the front-page news in newspapers or announced in radio like declaring themselves saviors. The poor were not able to express their sincere appreciation in time because the money donated would continuously come back to the moneybags’ pockets by initiating several jerry-built projects, several products glorified in advertising, several performances and several "service for the people” frauds. In the spring festival of this year, our leaders who have the common touch finally discovered that our people are not living with their dignity, and then a new slogan was given birth -- “Let the people live with dignity”.

Leaders, how can the people live with their dignity? Those who are slightly kind-hearted and do not possess “three loves” were jailed under improper judicial processes which originally are not fair though. Want to say something that should not be said or petition? Do you know the police have guns? The least forcible action is still done by batons. Even the urban management force, chengguan, who are only armed with wooden sticks, have the right to beat people at their very own will. When there are more and more people disobeying the government and the army comes, will you tenaciously resist? With the vanguard, machine guns and tanks, approaching, those who die under the gunfire are all lawbreakers. They are guilty when alive, thus they have no dignity when dead. It is guilty to memorise them of course! Don't agree on housing demolition and relocation? Are your house and grave harder than my steel-made bulldozer? We are hosting the Olympic Games and World Expo, and the foreigners are coming. You dirty, ragged workers dishonour our city's image and disgrace our international image. Get out from the city and get back to the country. Be sure to come back to the city to take care of your hard, exhausting and dirty job after our precious foreign guests left. Are these the efforts done by our leaders in order to let the people live with their dignity?

In fact, it is not hard to let the people live with their dignity. If the people have the decision whether a person can be a government official and the control of the officials’ careers, will the officials dare to abuse their power and trample the dignity of those controlling of their careers? There will not be a permanent relationship of superiority and inferiority when there is no permanent officials. Will there still be the problem of “superior upper class and inferior lower class”? If we are provided a society that allows fair competition and possesses a fairer judicial system, which everybody has the opportunity to become wealthy by efforts instead of power, will the rich still show off their money?

What will it remain if we remove the coat of power and money from Chinese people? How long do we ordinary people have to await until the day that we really live with our dignity finally comes?

P.S. Five demands: civilised behaviour, politeness, hygiene, discipline, and morality

       Four beauties: pertaining to the soul, language, actions and environment

       Three loves: love of motherland, socialism, and the Communist Party