[HKUSU Undergrad] The Price Paid After the Struggles

The Price Paid After the Struggles

Translated by pseudol, written by Deborah Tsoi [Undergrad May 2017, HKUSU]
Original: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4U2Gdqux68-ZTZZa2t0SzE3RUk/view 

Hong Kong 1956 riots

hkmemory.org; 1956 riots

On 1956 Double Ten Day (the National Day of the Republic of China), some rightists, supported by Kuomintang spies, rioted after their flags were destroyed by officers of the Resettlement Department. Crimes including arson and robbery, rape and murder were committed. More than 300 people were injured, including Fritz Ernst, the vice-consul of Switzerland in Hong Kong, and his wife. This was the deadliest riot in the history of Hong Kong.

1967 Riot

Apple Daily; 1967 riot

In May 1967, a labour strike was staged in an artificial flower factory in San Po Kong. Police opened fire on workers which sparked off rioting. The leftists, instigated by China’s Cultural Revolution, confronted the British Hong Kong Government by planting real and fake bombs all over Hong Kong: 1167 in total. At least 52 people died, including 10 police officers. More than 802 people were injured, of whom 212 were police. 1936 people were prosecuted for offences committed during the rioting.

1994 Whitehead Disturbance

A hunger strike launched by Vietnamese boat people in protest against the territory’s repatriation policy degenerated into rioting and acts of arson. A joint operation was carried out to clear the camp, with more than 100 officers and helicopters from Government Flying Service deployed. 500 tear gas canisters were fired by police and correctional officers who met strong resistance during the crackdown.

2000 Hei Ling Chau Disturbance

Around 400 local and Vietnamese inmates were involved in a gang fight at Hei Ling Chau Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. They threw hard objects at police and correctional officers and attempted to set fire to the prison. Tear gas was deployed to quell the disturbance. Multiple injuries were caused. About 20 persons involved were convicted of rioting and received prison sentences ranging from 2 to 10 years.

The court cases following the Umbrella Movement in late 2014 and the Mong Kok Incident in early 2016 have not yet ended. Demonstrators in the Umbrella Movement were charged in succession, having been arrested one by one and some are now facing heavy sentences. This is undoubtedly a year of discouragement and frustration. Charged and convicted protesters face imprisonment and the loss of freedoms. Instead of showing empathy, many people took positions against the protesters. Surely, they had to pay the price for their unlawful actions. However, what kind of attitude should we adopt? How should we look at them? Court judgments do not mean in any way that the rule of law and justice are upheld. Conversely, the courts can become a political tool. Biased and exaggerated news reports may not reflect reality, but give rise to misunderstandings which intensify echo chamber effect and social polarisation. When commenting on protesters, I believe members of the public should take their motives, circumstances and the social context into account to make a fair judgement.

After the Umbrella Movement

Just one day after the Chief Executive Election, a new chapter of political persecution was effected. All nine Occupy Central founders - Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Chan Kin-man and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun, the Democratic Party’s Lee Wing-tat, former leader of the Hong Kong Federation of Students Eason Chung Yiu-wah, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin and League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming - were charged with the common law crime of committing public nuisance. The maximum penalty for that offence is a seven-year term of imprisonment. The sentence for the common law offence is heavier than those for of public nuisance under the Summary Offences Ordinance and unlawful assembly under the Public Order Ordinance. The Civic Party’s Alan Leong suspects charging the nine for the common law offence is a political decision based on the higher maximum penalty. Some others also said that so doing aimed at evading the sensitive issue of freedom of assembly.

2016 Mong Kok Civil Unrest

Key words: Hawkers, Illegality, Glass, Bricks, Arson, Rioters, Severe punishment, Deterrence

Many people felt that while the protesters’ actions were too violent and threatened others’ safety, it was unforgivable for the police to fire warning shots. Therefore, they blamed both the police and protesters equally. The charges against 91 protesters in total included rioting, arson, unlawful assembly, assault on police officers, possession of offensive weapons and public nuisance. Several participants were convicted. One of them was sentenced to nine-month imprisonment for assaulting police and resisting arrest. Three (including one student from the University of Hong Kong) received a three-year prison sentence for rioting. Another will spend four years and nine months in jail for arson. Hongkongers were charged and convicted of rioting for the first time since rioting was made an offence in the 1970s.

The Mong Kok civil unrest was classified as a riot. Many people have questioned the heaviness of the sentences. After taking into account the background of the defendant, reasons of the mitigation plea and motives for committing the crime, could the judge impose deterrent sentences?

Motives behind the struggle

Judge Sham Siu-man said in his judgment that “Violence is violence and there is no difference. Should lenient sentences be imposed to those who expressed discontent with the government? Should they be imposed to those with loftier ideals even though the level of violence was the same?” It's impossible to generalise when discussing the various acts of violence: they cannot be viewed in black and white terms. If the court does not take motives and intentions into consideration when meting out a penalty, what is the point of making a plea in mitigation?

There is no doubt that the Umbrella Movement was a civil disobedience movement. Participants placed great emphasis on the long-term interests of the public in their fight for social justice. They hoped to force the regime to face public opinion and give a more democratic proposal on universal suffrage through practising non-violent disobedience. However, among those tens of thousands of participants, not all of them fully supported the philosophy of civil disobedience. Instead, many protesters were motivated to act by the firing of 78 tear gas canisters and so wished to collaborate with the students to face down the political machine. Their reasons changed with the environment. They had no choices to commit crimes but were unwilling to resign themselves to fate. The forcefulness of Leung Chun-ying encouraged more and more people to join the Umbrella Movement.

In the Mong Kok civil unrest, the motives of protesters were even more complicated.

Dissatisfied with the government’s crackdown on hawkers, some responded to the appeal made by political organisations and went to the scene to lend their support. Some took to the streets up in arms over the police firing of warning shots. Some bore longer grudges against the style of policing in Hong Kong while some were dissatisfied with the government. Unlike the relatively planned and organised Umbrella Movement, the Mong Kok Civil Unrest was more spontaneous and lacked proper organisation. The flames of violence flared up as conflicts escalated. Frankly, many of the participants were driven by emotion as they threw bricks and glass bottles. They relied on sheer luck to avoid arrest. However, even though we cannot articulate every protester's motive, they had in common a fight, not for personal gain, but for societal interests. Their actions, which attempted to protect other protesters, were altruistic.

Judge Anthony Kwok, who was responsible for the rioting case, stated that this riot was more serious than the Whitehead Disturbance. The obstinate insistence of the police was key in turning the mayhem in Mong Kok into a riot and added fuel to the fire. The clashes were completely out of control. The police hoped to clear the hawkers at an early stage and spoiled the pleasure of fishball lovers by deploying a Police Tactical Unit. Plainclothes officers brandished batons and used pepper spray against those protesting the clearout. In consequence, the protesters sought revenge by throwing objects at the scene. However, in the case of the Whitehead Disturbance, the lawyer for the first defendant in the Mong Kok clashes said, “Vietnamese boat people used self-made weapons to attack another group of refugees. Their acts were apparently premeditated.” The two cases were completely different in terms of motive.

Conclusion: How should we look at the protesters?

The court’s ruling is out of public control. However, instead of sneering, severing ties with the persons involved and rubbing salt into protesters’ wounds, I believe the public should sympathise with them and understand the difficulties of our society. A helping hand should be lent to those peers behind bars. 

Perhaps to many, protesters embracing the rule of “non-violence” is crucial. Yet, what is more important than to think about their reasons for taking risks?  It took time for protesters’ sentiments to develop. 

Persecution by the police in previous social movements, the suppression tactics of the regime in various controversies and the failure of "peaceful, rational and non-violent" protest movements culminated in the use of violence. These arguments do not aim to absolve those who cause harm to others, but to point out that the public should think and question whether the assumption that "as long as violent behaviours are involved, things become definitely evil" is correct. The degree of acceptance of various behaviours changes over time and in different contexts. Some people agreed the act of throwing bottles was shocking and disconcerting. However, does that not imply that the firing of shots by the police unlocked Pandora's box by promoting the use of violence? I believe people with a conscience would not make heartless and harsh comments after reflection.

In the future, the Hong Kong communist regime will seek to put the participants of the Umbrella Movement and the protesters of the Mong Kok Civil Unrest in jail. I beseech every Hongkonger not to blame the protesters. This extra burden of blame should not be added to their lot: rather, more support should be provided.

Statement of the Generation: 00 - Preamble

Statement of the Generation: 00 - Preamble

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by The Undergrad session 2015, HKUSU

[DIRECTORY: AT THE END]

This is the change of an era, and we are in this whirlpool. The disputes between generation have not stopped, but the struggle of this era has begun. No one can arrogantly neglect the aspiration from the society. No one can be trampled cowardly by the authority. We might not win the cruel reality, but we have the responsibility to respond to this era. From “Greater China” to localism, from democracy in China to autonomy in Hong Kong, from resistance to awared, comprehensive revolution – we are trying to prove that these are values that all Hongkongers deserve, and also our Zeitgeist. As Immanuel Kant said, “Out of timber so crooked as that from which man is made nothing entirely straight can be carved”.

So we drafted this statement – it began with the difficulties encountered by Hong Kong youth in this era. We described our characters and what do we want our Hong Kong to be. We know the inter-generational conflicts, and dare to point out the problems of them. We are like expecting the birth of a Hong Kong constitution, so we have prepared well to talk about the spirit, the character, the values, the facets and the vision of this code. We are like providing policies, laying the foundation for the council politics in a new generation. We are more like giving us a firm promise, that the blueprint we are having now and the sparkling aspiration will follow us for the whole life that we dare not forget.

Out of a crooked man, we must carve a straight path from it. Hong Kong needs to be under the test of the era. We Hongkongers must create a unique identity too. We Hong Kong youth need to show our strengths and determination. A generation of youth might eventually be old, but the proposals and spirits in this statement will be continuously under critique, debates, as well as developed and practiced – eventually, gaining roots across this territory.

The “Character” of This Generation

We are the best of generations, we are the worst of generations.

We are not born in chaotic times, but rather a moment when the sovereignty of Hong Kong was not transferred to China. The little us were not as perturbed as our older generation. The far and happy childhood was our imagination to Hong Kong: after school, kids ran along with their friends in parks; assignments, tests or exams were never a burden to us; we loved the estate shopping mall where we could buy our daily necessities in grocery stores or markets, or get capsule toys in stationery shops; on holidays, we could go to the Space Museum, Science Museum or Ocean Park, which were not yet cramped. As we grow, we see Hong Kong degenerating. These good old images are becoming the “Old Hong Kong”. Under this political darkness, catastrophes keep on pushing Hong Kong to the brink of death: the bogus One Country, Two Systems; a dysfunctional council; an ineffective horde of law enforcement agencies; a deceitful bunch of media; “white elephant” projects draining on and on... We have entered the worst times of Hong Kong when ridiculous things become normal. We are the generation hung between desperation and hope.

We did not choose Hong Kong, we choose Hong Kong.

Being born in Hong Kong was never our choice – we were born in British Hong Kong but raised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and are now living in the Hong Kong which is seemingly ruled completely by the PRC. Some may say if we do not like this identity, we can leave. We have no absolute responsibilities to be loyal to a place, but we have innumerable feelings to protect a place that raised us, and to protect Hongkongers as we share the common language and memories. This is the verity of “being born and raised in Hong Kong”. Even some may see Hong Kong as a temporary place to live; even some may be nonchalant on current affairs and live in the tiny existing freedom; even some may not be willing to resist the authoritarian regime for their homeland, we – amid political, economic, cultural fall – are willing to shout. We are mavericks who are unwilling to succumb to the authority nor interests.

We are the molded generation under competitions.

Our paths have been set since we were small, and pretty much the same one: interest classes, studying, taking exams, getting into colleges, finding good jobs. “We” might begin from different starting points on the running track, be it rich, middle-income or grassroots, but we are heading to the same destination. We compete for educational resources. We have to run faster, better, or even nastier to get others out of the track if we have to win. The last generation said “poor results means failure” and “not getting into colleges means meaningless prospects”, so we study and study for a good job with high salary. We spare no efforts in getting into schools they want us to get in, because education is the tool for social power and wealth allocation. Therefore, if they can afford, we have to go to different interest classes, learning different languages, musical instruments, sports or other art activities, so as to get into the “top-notch schools”. We are exhausted – brains and brawns: tutorial classes after classes make us sharp in exams so as to cut weaker ones away. We are in this competition. Those who win will say this is fair, because the winners are superior and the losers are lazy; the losers think this is fair too, because they have fought hard. Then we are thrown into the attritive society. To survive, one must compete; to compete, one must step on others' failures.

We refuse to live in such monotonous and gruelling society, nor follow the values shaped by the last generation. Even though it sounds hard, we have the courage to break the box. Every possibility exists in our Hong Kong, where artists and athletes can be a good occupation. Everyone should have the chance and possibility to paint and realize their dreams, and choose their own ways. In the Cantonese film “She Remembers, He Forgets”, there is this line: “Dream is things you think you must do before your last breath”. Our dream is to change Hong Kong. We are good at calculation, but failed at too much calculation. From taking means of transportation to life partner, we are too adept at turning things which can or cannot be quantified into numbers, treating success or failure with this so-called rationality. “Either you step on others' bodies, or you'll be stepped”, and one will fall into this endless cycle. In a narrow living space, people are afraid of being stepped on and have become self-protecting. This has in turn become a bigger nightmare.

We resist uncertainties, including resistance. It tampers our “calculators”. The “monochromatic screen” cannot tackle complicated geopolitical questions, so when we saw people taking it on streets, we stood with folded hands. We are not afraid of no fruits. No fruits might even be good, but if those self-deceiving fruits – hope – were gone, who would comfort such wound? Even if I decided to throw away the “calculator” and take on the road against the authority, I might the only one on the road. Who would comfort this solitude? We are domesticated as “rational animals”, but must it be so? “The calculator” shows the arrogance to include the world in a machine. The evolution of men and the advances in the society do not rely on the “calculated” success, but the unknown – which cannot be “calculated” at all. 

Since we were small, we were taught that obedience, instead of arrogance and obstinacy, will help one merge in the mainstream. We follow the mass because we know what comes with that is the pride from the society. The recognition, acknowledgement and status of ourselves can hardly be outside the box of criteria set by the society. When they say “you are elites”, we are elites; when they say “you are wasted youth”, we are wasted youth. The criteria on personal values brutally remove the right to define ourselves. “I” am no longer elaborated by “me”.

The last generation told us we can feel safe when we react in a way everyone likes when appropriate, if our emotions can follow the social ethics. But are we real if our behaviour is not based on real feelings but “set as default”? Are we real if we cannot face our true emotions and suppress how we really feel? There are only two kinds of things in the world, your business and none of your business. The former one needs us to tackle, and we have no stance on the latter one. On one hand we dislike the bland side of ourselves, on one hand we are glad that we are those who are recognized by the society. Every day, we are struggling between self-abhorrence and arrogance, and the only status we have is youngsters in Hong Kong. We have nothing left besides this. Albert Camus, in his book The Stranger, wrote “In our society any man who does not weep at his mother's funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death.” We do not want to live in the society of Meursault, we want to live our lives.

This generation lives in the “blissed tree shades” of the last generation. We have more resources and are enjoying their economic fruits. They make Hong Kong famous and part of the “Newlonkong”. A beautiful city with bright lights indeed, Hong Kong has become a place chasing after figures. There is no big change in the game rules – survival of the fittest. But the last generation has not yet found out that those on the top who hold most resources are the “survivors”. The last generation has not yet realized that the fairy tales of “Lion Rock spirit” (which says hardship will be repaid well) no longer exists. The social mobility of this generation is low. Hardship can barely get economic fruits in exchange. Justice means following the original game rule. Lessons and preaches such as “What have you done for Hong Kong except messing around?” have become part of our lives. In their eyes, we are but ungrateful wasted youth sitting there; we are useless trash. After the Umbrella Revolution, the values differences between two generations become more and more obvious. Parents or teachers no longer stand with us. Following the “work - eat bread - save money for down payment” chain after graduation, giving seats in MTR compartment, obeying rules set by the last generation are the path for removing the “wasted youth” label.

We do not want to see our society tearing apart. We are sick of bickering with the seniors. We once tried to talk rationally to the last generation but no one seems to comprehend the real world. Some of us came out and strived for changing problems that the last generation failed to against all odds. We carried the sin of “wasted youth/rioters” and neglected the backfire from the last generation. We stood until dawn on Nathan Road or Connaught Road Central. We threw bricks with anger and despair, because we do not want Hong Kong to die.

This generation does not only crave for richness materially, but also the say which is controlled by the last generation, and the freedom we have not had before. We hope Hongkongers can live happily afterwards and continue to be under the “blessed tree shades” brought by the last generation. Maybe we might not be acknowledged by the last generation, but we can only “wilfully” chase after the light at the end of the tunnel amid this storm. If this is what a “wasted youth” do, we are absolutely “wasted”, because what we are after is freedom.

The society sugarcoats the truth, rottens in the hands of officials and gags us all. The society domesticates us, and we can no longer give anything else other than the model answer. We started to refuse and reject because some changes are irrevocable. Our Hong Kong is no longer what it was. It can no longer be tormented. We are restricted by doubts and fears, but we see our weakness and constraints, and try to overcome them. We are talking about things others dare not to. We are pointing fingers to the injustice. More people might enjoy in their comfort circles, but we would rather live painfully because our eyes are no longer blind.

In the face of a ridiculous society and so-called masochistic peers, we have to see hopes in desperation. Wong Pik-wan, a local novelist, wrote: “Hope is like air and light to God. When you say there is hope, and there it is.” We are standing on the cliff and have no alternatives. Let us say “there is hope, and there it is”. We have to see hope, we have to grasp hope.

THE UNDERGRAD 2016 FINALE Editorial Board

Editor-in-chief: Marcus Lau Yee-ching

Deputy editor-in-chief: Chan Hoi-ying; Chiang Min-yen

Statement of the Generation

00 - Preamble

02 - The Possibilities of Education

10 - Awareness as a Nation and Mass Movement

11 - Our 2047

Your Neutrality Is the Largest Protection for Govt's Suppression

Your Neutrality Is the Largest Protection for Govt's Suppression

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Ken Yung
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2016/02/10/27813/ 

(Blindfolded and non-blindfolded Lady Justice. What is neutral and just, indeed?)

In Hong Kong, there are lots of people obsessed with neutrality, they like saying:

"After all, you are illegal and wrong. / Both parties are wrong! / Police shooting was wrong, but protesters throwing bricks were wrong too!"

Basically, what lies beneath their subterfuge is: "you cannot blame the cops shooting."

These might sound just, but actually are idiotic.

Since the Umbrella Revolution, there are lots of such speech,

seems that "comprehensive thinking" or neutrality means to "blame both sides indiscriminately".

But: Are both sides' "fault" equivalent or proportional? Are both sides' authorities or force equivalent or proportional?

If one is removing all the backgrounds and reasons, things are certainly "right"!

Beating people is wrong.

"Right"! If you are turning a blind eye to the fact of the person is being kidnapped and his son being pointed by a knife.

Occupying is wrong.

That doesn't make Franklin Chu beating pedestrians with his baton right.

Making kids crying is wrong.

"Right"! If you are turning a blind eye to the milk formula rush from Chinese smugglers.

Kicking suitcases is wrong.

If you are turning a blind eye to the influx of suitcases in Sheung Shui, or you can stand above suitcases sea like Moses did.

Swearing is wrong.

So surrounding university campus with Blue Ribbons is right?

Removing all the background and having a discussion is not neutral, but silly.

Is the public's force and the police's guns proportional?

Are the consequences of protesters using force and policemen using gun proportional?

The seven cops still remain at large. Franklin Chu is still at large.

But protesters are arrested and sent into jails.

Oh that is justice and neutrality?

When an adult is beating a kid, and the kid hits back, will you "blame both sides indiscriminately"? Or say "beating people is not right"?

A normal person should help the kid and condemn the adult. But those who are obsessed with neutrality will say something like what I have just written.

Who are they to be neutral? A judge. Hongkongers are one of the stakeholders. Why are those neutrality lovers discussing Hong Kong, our home, as if it is one of the poor countries?

People usually have to two kinds of reactions, one is to react valiantly, another one is to remove himself from the reality and make himself a film audience, so as to reduce the impact on him.

Those neutrality lovers are the latter ones, who are actually protecting the regime and allow it to continue such suppression to the people.