Maron: HKers Are Not Morally Obliged to Save Depraved Chinamen

Hongkongers Are Not Morally Obliged to Save Depraved Chinamen

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Maron (瑪倫)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-15-2015/21757/ 

Gary Fan, Claudia Mo, Ray Chan, "Fast Beat", "Long Hair", James Hon, Raphael Wong Ho-ming.....these names were widely acclaimed a few months or few years ago, among all obfuscating pan-democrats. These self-dubbed "progressists" had perplexed some politically naive Hongkongers as if they can truly help.

These days, citizens have witnessed the pan-dems becoming "pan-fried democrooks" and have seen the mounting localist protests against parallel traders. Even though the restoration movement might not be as successful as expected, the localists have gained the public an upper hand of this battle, whereas these self-claimed "progressive" pan-dems took the credit of the favourable results and left the blames to localists.

What is behind localists' success? It is that the localists all know a cruel fact - "politics is showbiz for ugliness". Instead of getting "halo" or claiming credits, localists are pragmatic and emphasise efficiency - even at the expense of adopting extreme means. For the "Restoring Tuen Mun" social movement, the mainstream media have condemned the localists as severe as possible. But we localists are not going down because of it as we do know one thing - nothing is ever done by the pan-dems because they love sitting on the moral high ground and dodge immediately if being criticised. If it is useful in talking the talk, the valorous localists will never have to walk the walk!

Out of fear, the pan-dems have been avoiding conflicts. Take Umbrella Revolution as an example. Admiralty and Mong Kok are utterly two different worlds back then. Pan-dems were calling the shot in the Admiralty "Big Stage". Can weak flowers living in the greenhouse really be compared to the daredevils in Mong Kok? Leung Kwok-hung "Long Hair", a self-claimed revolutionist, has shown his true colours - a coward - since the valorous confrontational tactics derived in Mong Kok.

What Leung uses to do - hurling bananas or sending coffins to officials - is performance art after all, without a slight of influence. The conflicts between the pan-dems and the localists these days are exactly the continuation of the differences between Admiralty and Mong Kok.

I am a localist, and localists can be unscrupulous - I'm not ashamed to admit it. Why not indulging in the "love and peace" crap as the pan-dems do? Let's see what the Occupy Central movement ended up. Nosediving popularity in the end. And then what? There has been seen no coming back. Talking Chinamen into love and peace is merely casting pearls before swine given that it is their nature to bully the weak, fear the strong and nothing else. They will come after you once you show weakness in front of them.

Do remember what Lu Xun says, "We shall not be afraid of speculating Chinese people with the most malicious intent". Chinamen are not entitled to blame Hongkongers for being ruthless since they never deserve otherwise.

Some leftards might believe, "When you oppose devils, you become one of them." For the record, with the mission to protect our civilised city, we choose to treat Chinamen like barbarians - Barbarians will only be taken aback by acts of their kind. 

Localists dare to deal with Chinamen because there's no mind-shackles towards the suggestions by some "Greater China" faction, which are thoughts such as "the institution is the culprit" and "the party and the country are two separable concepts" so as to harbour their own kind. Leopard cannot change its spots. Even with a different regime, Chinamen are Chinamen.

Imagine the "the party and the country are two separable concepts" discourse stands. It would not be a problem if Japan does not apologise for what they have done in WWII. By this very logic, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association would have nothing to do with Japanese. Therefore there would be no need for today's Japanese to bear the responsibility back then. This logic itself proves what the kind of people Chinamen are. I wouldn't mind if Chinamen mutilate themselves with such retarded thought. But letting them to rule over Hong Kong? The answer is "No", a certain "No".

Democracy and China combined is the best example of Stockholm syndrome. If ever there is some so-called democratic China, it will not change the fact that Chinamen are born colonisers.

Let me ask you a question. If your neighbours have some family disputes, will you intervene between them? Lines are clearly drawn, so "No". Similarly, Hongkongers are not morally obliged to save depraved Chinamen. And the localists are going to kick them out of our home - by all means necessary - before it is too late.

Wing Wing: Unfriendly Hong Kong? Misinterpretation!

Unfriendly Hong Kong? Misinterpretation!

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L. and Kristee Q., Written by Wing Wing (翼雙飛)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/04-12-2015/22307 

The Oriental Daily recently published an article, titled "The Unfriendliest Cities in the World. Hong Kong ranks the 4th", saying that "although the survey conducted by Yahoo Travel did not explain the reason why, it did mention the 'unfriendly people' are mostly youngsters. It could be that reasons may relate to the recent anti-smugglers movement against mainland Chinese tourists."

Right. There are always people who assume young adults are useless, who choose to choose to shift the blame to others despite the fact that business operations are after all the business owner's responsibility, or those people who oppose the anti-smugglers movement -- these people will be more than willing to falsify the news. It is to be expected that they comment, "The image of Hong Kong is now tarnished by these 'useless young'! See! Surveys abroad prove it too! It is exactly what I've been saying..." On the Facebook pages of those pro-government/establishment figures (Translator's note: they are usually written in Chinese rather than English), you will find tonnes of these anti-"youngsters" quotes.

To be fair enough, do not judge a book by its cover and in this case do not judge a news report by its title, or else you will be hoodwinked. Please do take a look of the original survey "The Unfriendliest City in the World is..." and its content -- "The survey group consisted of 2,005 men and women, all from the United States."

Translation. The title "in the World" is obviously misleading -- unless the world consists of the opinions of 2,005 Americans. If you ask 2,000 or so Hongkongers what country's cuisines they love most and publish an article named "The Most Popular Cuisines in the World", does it reflect the truth? Changing the former one into "The Unfriendliest Cities in the eyes of US people" and the latter one into "The Most Popular Cuisines in Hong Kong" is surely closer to what the facts represent. After this clarification of the 'surveys' is there a sense that supposed-to-be factual news report from Oriental Daily is manufactured bullshit tailored for their reader's demographic?

In the comment section of the article, there are many doubts, like "What background do these 2,000 people have? A survey as such can only be worth referencing if the participants have travelled to few countries so that they can draw any conclusions. If a participant has only been to Hong Kong, then honestly does this disqualify the participant from deciding which one is "The Unfriendliest City in the World".

Another travel site Conde Nest Traveler announces "Readers' Choice Awards" on a annually basis. In Readers' Choice Awards 2014, there were approximately 77,000 readers participating in the survey, outnumbering Yahoo's survey. The site ranks Johannesburg, South Africa as the unfriendliest city, while Beijing ranks 6th, whereas Hong Kong isn't on the list. It also lists out all the factors of "unfriendliness", such as location and size of the city, political views, language barriers and so on, but not necessarily people's attitudes. Yes, Yahoo Travel doesn't necessarily have to mention the method it used to conduct the survey. Be it transparent or not, the writer of the news article quoting the survey is definitely not being objective for he/she attempted to put words into those 2,005 participants’ mouths.

The "The Unfriendliest City in the World is..." article from Yahoo Travel is nonsense. After considering the evidence this is certain. Yet the Oriental Daily, regardless of the paper's political bent, supports its allegation about the anti-smugglers movement by using that survey so  people can say, "You see! These useless youths are but tarnishing HK's image!" But when asked for details and for evidence no response has been forthcoming.

I continued in reading the Yahoo Travel article, it says,

"And more millennials considered Hong Kong, China, and Sydney, Australia, to be rude compared with respondents 35 and older."

Some misinterpret this as saying that youngsters in Hong Kong are less friendly than those aged 35 or above. I'm not saying that you shouldn't read newspapers at all, but to be critical -- when you see "it is speculated that", "it is said that", "some say", or any similar sort of such, pay attention and consider whether it's reasonable or not.Surely these news items are not in fact news but merely opinion pieces.In today's Hong Kong, most of the officials, politicians, and media do not bother to do a great job, let alone uphold the spirit that the job implies. It's up to you at the end of the day whether you are manipulated or not.