Lewis Loud: Love for China Complex

Love for China Complex

Translated by Karen L, edited by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Lewis Loud
Original: https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E6%83%85%E7%B5%90%E7%B3%BE%E7%B5%90%E7%9A%84-%E9%96%8B%E6%98%8E%E6%B4%BE-%E5%8F%AA%E6%9C%83%E5%8A%A9%E9%95%B7%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E6%AE%96%E6%B0%91/ 

During the winter peak flu season, Hong Kong doctors called for the abolition of the one-way permit scheme, as the family reunification (which allows 150 mainlanders to settle here daily) has overloaded the city’s health care system. It was not to incite hatred against mainlanders, but to voice discontent with manpower shortage.

It is expected to see organizations specifically serving new arrivals from China against the advocation of the medical staff, as well as to see some of the leftists take the opportunity to suggest importing more manpower from China.

Those fence-sitters could get along so long as the policy does not screw them over in a rather direct way. Most of these people choose to accept what the reality offers (the overcrowding problem in Hong Kong) however unpleasant it is, for it is a hot potato for anyone while turning a blind eye to it requires no effort.

("To reduce immigrants at the source." Gary Fan,
Claudia Mo, Roy Tam and Chapmen Tsang in front.)

The overpopulation caused by mainland migrant influx has been left unresolved for years. Early in 2013 when New Territories was first overrun by parallel traders, acrimonious debate over ‘cutting people from the source of immigration’ had divided the pan-democracy camp. Gary Fan, Claudia Mo and Roy Tam proved themselves non-rubber-stamped as they saw through the ‘family reunification’ presents the ideology placing mainland Chinese before anyone else. In other words, it is Chinese nationalism/patriotism.

From the 1989 Tian'anmen Square protests to the status quo, the development of Hong Kong politics has attached to ‘the love for China’. Though it is high time politicians on people’s mandate should break silence over the deadlock Hongkongers are facing, they could not preserve our Hong Kong if it means to upset mainlanders. Hongkongers’ well-being is long forgotten; all we hear nowadays are concerns about “this is just what the CCP hopes for” or “that would provoke the CCP”.

To pro-Beijing camp, the inflow of one-way permits holders serves the crucial purpose of national security to assimilating Hong Kong into China. Sharing the “general consensus”, pro-democracy camp tends to stand on the moral high ground, emphasizing how inhumane to compromise Chinese people’s benefits. If it occurs to you that actual allocation of resources is not included in the equation, it is because the camp has never been given real power to rule. The shady past of the “democracy campaigns” presupposes a conflict with local people and their interest. Though at the very inception it was the prospect of a democratic China that motivated them, there from the process derives the community rooted for Hong Kong itself which now comes to stand in the way of these Chinese nationalists. The beginning should predict the ending.

In this context of history, a Chinese idiom precisely describes pan-democracy camp’s political standing. Translated into “be spat on the face and let the spittle dry”, it suggests their fate-resigning mindset under Hong Kong’s political reality mingled with the “Chinese” self-identification that hails CCP in trusting it to be orthodox for the conception of China. Thus it explains why many of them are not convinced that Hong Kong is being invaded at the time of speaking, and is going to be handled as another Xinjiang, Tibet and Mongolia. It can also be found in them the chauvinism that generalizes neighbouring countries that can be traced back to the same ancestry to a part of one great China, the prerequisite of disapproving Hong Kong Independence by all means, and so forth.

Career politicians in Hong Kong are acquainted with the fact that crying out for “democracy” and “human rights” keep their seats; at the least such statement would not get them disqualified from the elections. Despite the former has no foreseeable future, the latter, namely Chinese migrants’ human rights, can be satisfied almost effortlessly with the solicitous help from pro-Beijing camp. Cases in point abound in public housing, social welfare, and this time medical services. Their love of China was respected during the colonial period, but with resources taken into account today, it has turned them into accomplices to exploiting Hongkongers’ welfare to the full. 

Under British rule, we used to honour democracy, freedom and human rights. Common virtues as such, sadly, have been rendered to some classic textbook examples in Critical Thinking 101. Sooner or later, the magic of verbal fallacies will fade and inevitably those “democracy-oriented” politicians’ influences will be overridden by their hardcore loyal pro-Beijing counterparts. A tragedy it is, but a sure price to pay with neither genuine Hong Kong identity nor support from China.

Maron: Put A Stop To "Construct A Democratic China"

Put A Stop To "Construct A Democratic China"

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, edited by Kristee Q, written by Maron
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-27-2015/22006/ 

Richard Tsoi and Lee Cheuk-yan. (aTV)

The tertiary student sector appears to be "bidding farewell to Greater China" - deflecting from the pan-dem's trajectory of "constructing a democratic China".

The Greater China faction has fabricated tales to draw support for "constructing a democratic China", such as the discourse of "de facto governance of Hong Kong by CCP". There are two logical errors in this proposition. First, if Country X governs Hong Kong, then Hongkongers have to fight for democracy and freedom for the people from Country X? No, of course not.  Are Hongkongers "universal democratic fighters"? Second, the relationship between China and Hong Kong is the relationship of the rapist and the victim. When the victim cannot escape from the iron fist and sympathises with the rapist, this is called "Stockholm Syndrome". When rapists have democracy and freedom, will they not rape others? A leopard will not change its spots.

Another discourse to be considered is the "geopolitics of HK and China". As China is close to Hong Kong, then it has to interfere with our affairs. Vietnamese refugees have seriously affected Hong Kong in the past, so we have to "construct a democratic Vietnam"?

Also, "a democratic China benefits Hong Kong" discourse says democracy in China will be conducive to HK's autonomy. Chinese people hate HK's prerogative (border/passport/tax revenue...), and there are no signs  that this discourse is an effective path, or worse, they will use "the majority rules" and metamorphosise Hong Kong into an utterly Chinese entity. Autonomy? Daydreaming. Such discourse is beyond logic.

The Pan Dem's theory and actions are beyond comprehension. What have they accomplished in the many years following their hollow slogan of "constructing a democratic China"? They don't have a plan,but  rather the utilisation of another Ponzi scheme to extract money from pan-dem supporters! They offer all kinds of sops and excuses, such as China banning them from entering the mainland -- is there any country allowing such an opposition party from entering its own territory? Stowing away is a common tactic adopted by revolutionaries, why isn't there anyone adopting the tactic? Don't tell me it's illegal, the Occupy movement is technically illegal too, so isn't it more worthwhile to stow away so as to achieve the goal of "constructing a democratic China"? The basis of such construction should be in China, not Hong Kong. Try to explain in 1989, why Lee Cheuk-yan had to sign his confession letter and return to Hong Kong? Why not instigate rebellion in those  political prisoners in Qincheng Prison and create a Chinese Storming of Bastille? It seems that these "seniors" are afraid of death. They love fame and fortune from the local political arena, and as a natural progression of this fear they have started to dream of "constructing a democratic China". It is absurd to continue the formulaic procedures of chanting slogans at every  Tian'anmen Massacre vigil. Those who appear  on  stage are unabashed, and appear complacent when they do so. To be frank, it is just a joint celebratory  wanking party.

Waiting for the  situation to change in China is spineless and  passive. Those evil Greater Chinese ignoramuses do not want to take the huge risk in China, yet they are willing to wait and take credit once there are some signs of democratic development there. Even the appearance of mass movements does not mean that all Chinese people want democracy. Wukan villagers have said they did not seek the overturn of CCP. Chinese people do not want democratic China nor to overturn the CCP regime - that's it! Why force them? We should respect their choice. Pan-dems want political gains, and to  bind China and Hong Kong together by chanting slogans like "No democratic Hong Kong when there is no democratic China". They often fantasise about the reform in China. They have not realised that most  Chinese people do not want to change, and Hongkongers do. Hong Kong is our land. A leftard, Ben Lam, said Chinese are our war-fellows -- he is ignorant and therefore unimportant to HK. Apple Daily and Ming Pao are both leftard-leaning. Hongkongers have to wake up, and not turn Chinese people into cannon fodder -- it is unrealistic and unethical and the bottom line is that it is ineffectual.

Stop "constructing a democratic China". Stop being a nuisance.