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

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

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

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

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

Asking a Tiger for Its Skin

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

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

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

Xi, Proud of Being a Dictator

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

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

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

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

Hong Kong Independence Represents a Bright Time to Come

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Summary, not full translation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yu Jie: Arrogant Headmaster, Arrogant Chinese

Arrogant Headmaster, Arrogant Chinese

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Yu Jie (余杰)
Original: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150317/19079443 

Zheng Qiang was raving a few days ago at a press conference of the Chinese NPC about "the overseas Chinese students saving universities in Britain":

I've returned from Oxford. All their professors are saying the truth: if the Chinese education system did not nurture such a good batch of youngsters, around 20% universities in Britain would be closed - this is true.

So a headmaster from one of the poorest provinces can finally hold his head up high to the "empire on which the sun never sets"!

A Qing dynasty official, Lin Zexu once claimed that "gweilos" from England were but vampires who did not know how to bend their knees. When the arrived, they could be easily attacked. Headmaster Zheng was similarly bursting with pride – so what’s the big deal, Oxford and Cambridge? "If we did not provide flocks of overseas students, your skeleton in the closet – the dilapidated, once-great empire that you have become – will be shown for all to see!"

Post by Hong Kong Columns - Translated.

Somebody doctored a photo of the "Two Meetings" - replacing the banner with "Parents' Meetings of Chinese Students Studying in the West". Quite accurate. Are there any official's children not studying in "evil capitalistic" countries with "ulterior motives"? Whether the offspring of Zheng studies in Guizhou University or abroad is worth our doxing?

[Translator's note: Tsinghua University was "first a preparatory school for students later sent by the government to study in the United States" - Wikipedia]

Top-notch institutions in China, such as Peking University or Tsinghua University, have become the "preparatory schools" for students before they go on to study in the US or Europe. The younger generation of China has never ceased to study, work and live in the West, and contribute to the growth of the West. This is a sign of failure for China’s entire higher education and social system. It is not something headmasters should feel proud of, rather, they should feel ashamed.

Post by Hong Kong Columns - Translated.

Zheng's logic is that of the almsgiver who hands out gifts with condescension.  This attitude is prevalent among Chinese elites and spreading like a cancer. They grab milk formula, daily necessities and luxuries in Hong Kong, arguing: "We are here to spend and give you job opportunities, how dare you not welcome us? Even if we urinate, defecate, jump red lights, and shout whenever we want, you should tolerate us." Chinese elites think Hongkongers would only live on air were it not for the Individual Visit Scheme. Yet "living on air" will not be as a "death" sentence – unlike that facing those kids whose parents are unable to buy quality milk formula so have to drink tainted formula, which makes them become big-headed babies. Does the Chinese dream of Xi Jinping include big-headed babies?

Chinese elites also go to Taiwan to buy fruits and seafood. All purchases have a political undertone. They think when they buy Taiwanese products, Taiwanese people should be grateful, or wish for "reunification" immediately. Yet the Sunflower Movement has shown the will of the younger generation, leaving Chinese leaders to reveal their true colours: "If we don't buy your fruits and seafood, you will suffer!"

China is not the almsgiver of the world, and the world is not the prostitute of China. So you are rich, huh? Buy more paper offerings, and create more smog then!