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.

Polymer: Enlightenment to Hongkongers through the Korean farmers

Enlightenment to Hongkongers through the Korean farmers

Translated by S. Lai, edited by Chen-tang, written by Polymer HK Editorial Team
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2015/07/04/17846/ (Originally on Issue 21, PolymerHK) 

‘Down! Down! WTO!’ Can you still hear any echo of this slogan in your mind? The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial Conference was held from 11 to 18 December 2005 in Hong Kong when a group of foreign protesters, mostly South Korean farmers, protested against globalisation. Not only did their struggle seize everyone’s attention, they even inspired all Hongkongers’ vision, sowing the seed towards civil disobedience. Our protest and struggle are never the same hitherto.

Before the Korean farmers came...

In the past, there is only one mode in demonstrating; Setting off from the Victoria Park, the crowd would march according to the designated route orderly, or even robotically, leaving no rubbish on the streets. As the pan-democrats led the march and the chanting, they made their speeches when the crowd eventually arrive at the Government headquarter in the evening, followed by people leaving and heading back home. This was the monotonous ceremony following the tradition of the1st July demonstration.

As Lau Sai-leung once said, “Mainstream middle-class people were the pivot of the 1st July Demonstration in 2003 together with barristers and professionals. They have a “fetish with order”, or are even in a state of indulgence. They fear physical conflicts, troubles and criticisms from the media, resulting in such a strolling protest. Protesters would walk around the venue and leave, forgetting the real target behind demonstrations and protests. As social movements are belittled to a way of living, they now lose their due impact, castrated by the host of the rally.’

Leung Man-tao (Translator's note: a leftard Hong Kong columnist renowned in China) also criticised such demonstration culture. He commented in  “They are almost burnt to death. We are yet still only the audience”, “ever since the 1st July Demonstration in 2003, “rationality” has become a phrase in a standard account of Hong Kong democratic movement. To those who study collective action, collective action confers a sense of identity to all participants, uniting them and even creating a brand new collective identity. For everyone who has gone to this rally, most of them must agree that “while we Hongkongers are determined to pursue democracy, we are too rational in our action.” “Rationality” thus becomes a Hongkongers’ proof of our own identity and a standard in determining whether protests are good or bad. Under such logic, “rationality”, under the eyes of Hongkongers, is afterall mere observance of orders. Unruly walking and running on the streets is not in accordance to order and thus irrational; demonstrating on stilts or skateboards are thus of course unruly and irrational as well. In case (just in case) when one makes use of self-immolation in protest, it shall be undoubtedly opposite to rationality, an act of complete insanity. In the other way round, it is absurd that we still find ourselves ‘rational’ when we generalise people as “irrationality” given that we don’t understand their reasons to protest or adopt totally different means in protest.’

‘Public intellectuals’ might be unsatisfied, but the general public took such practice for granted, or were even proud of it, until the Korean farmers shocked everyone.

A Moral Appeal: Protest through Performing Arts

Korean farmers might still go on demonstration and followed assigned routes to the protest areas, but they were not like the Hongkongers who had only made use of their mouths and their legs. As a blogger has once stated, the demonstration culture in Hong Kong limits the possibility and creativity of body movements to mere ‘walking’, restraining us from breaking through the current spacial settings.

The Korean farmers never confined themselves. They knew their aim to seek as much attention as they could in order to make their demands concerned by the general public. The classic three-step-and-a-kowtow is the most well-known act of the Korean farmers, which was somehow an impersonation of worshippers paying respect to buddhas at Tibet and showing an utmost pious attitude. Putting on knee pads and gloves and under the lead of the drum, for every three strides they took while shouting ‘Down Down WTO’, they kowtowed at the ground with their hands clapped together. These scenes were truly striking and moving to Hongkongers then. The media unanimously reported such protesting means from a positive perspective, i.e. the Oriental Daily described such asceticism as ‘The Moving Jang-geum Spirit’ in its headline, inducing Hongkongers’ reflection on the pros and cons of globalised trade.

Apart from asceticism, music was played, Korean ‘aunties’ danced in traditional Korean style and sang to raise the morale amid the rythme of the hand drums. According to report of ‘Cool Loud Web’,‘ another group of female Korean farmers held colourful sticks up high while two of them pushing the speakers and props forward. With their self-written songs, one led the crowd to sing with a microphone, the other followed and made their moves. During the bridge, on one hand, they chanted slogans of “Down Down WTO”, “Down Down FTA”, “Bye Bye USA” and “Bye Bye Bush”, or, on the other, yelled “We love Hong Kong” to the citizens energetically. Though I could never understand the speeches made by the one holding the microphone during the bridge or performance, the speeches are more like jokes among them, delighting everyone.’

As the ‘Cool Loud Web’ commented, chanting  in demonstrations in Hong Kong and Taiwan were mostly led by the leaders on stage and followed by the rest of the participants. Not only did it lack interaction among different groups, it failed to influence or interact with the general public or passers-by. Therefore, while people might have tried to mobilise as many people as they could for the demonstration, their chanting caused a totally opposite result. As the old Chinese saying goes, “Their spirit was aroused by the first roll or the drums, but was depleted by the second. And it was completely exhausted by the third”. The inability to gain an official promise from the government eventually exhausted the morale of the crowd. The Korean farmers’ demonstration yet allowed everyone to be starred, enhancing the camaraderie and even influencing the general public through interactions. The course of the demonstration manifested their aims.

The asceticism of Korean farmers moved many Hongkongers back then. (Apple Daily)

Dauntless towards bloodshed: militant protest and struggle
Still, it is afterall the intense physical confrontation that attracted the most flashlights. The Korean farmers had never given up on using physical confrontation ever since the start of the protest. The following are only some of  the ‘moves’ that were used:

1. Pulling down rods from metal barricades and sharpening bamboo sticks to attack police
2. Protesting through jumping into the sea and attempting to swim to the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre (HKCEC) (venue of the WTO Ministerial Conference)
3. Using cling wrap and umbrellas to protect themselves from pepper spray
4. Spraying extinguisher at the police
5. Using metal barricades to form a L-shape bulwark for charging at the police cordon
6. Burning coffins
7. Attempting to push police cars over
8. Occupying the Gloucester Road
9. Seizing police shields (returned after the protest)
10. Damaging public properties and charging through roadblocks

While these were only moves in 2005, can the level of protest in Hong Kong get closer to the Korean farmers’ today after 10 long years?

The protest entered its climax on 17th December. The Korean farmers upgraded their protest at Wan Chai that afternoon. A series of charging enabled them to go through the police cordon and attempt to intrude the new wing of HKCEC to stop the WTO Ministerial Conference. They eventually forced the police to shoot 34 gas grenades and mobilise armoured carriers and shoot super sock rounds. Unlike the original positive report, the media described the incident as ‘tumult’ or ‘uprising’, shifting the focus from anti-globalisation to violent confrontation.

Police using OC foam, commonly known as pepperspray (Apple Daily)

The several physical confrontations between the farmers and the police force allows Hongkongers the audience to discern the difference in level between  ‘violent protest’ and ‘physical confrontation’. As Lau Sai-leung explained in his article “The Logic Behind Mass Movement -- the Physical Showcase of Korean Farmers”, violent protest is to create the most chaotic effect with the major aim being disturbing social order through various means, namely: burning vehicles, throwing stones and assaulting shops, looting and attacking police with violence; another kind of violent protest has clear demands, attempting to put people’s political demands on the social agenda through the protest and inducing much discussion through the media. Physical confrontation then becomes a ‘theatrical performance’ in a mass movement. Farmers are required to be focused and passionate. Physical confrontation has to be vibrant from a journalist perspective and is thus capable to be starred in the headlines on the coming day. Still, when it is a mere showcase, one must recognises its bottom line. One cannot seriously damage the body of the opponent with offensive weapons, disturb the social order and attack other parties.

Protesters attempted to push over the police patrol car. (Cable News)

Farmers attacked police with fire extinguisher (TVB News)

The incident ended in peace at last, but the farmers’ protest shocked the youngsters participating in social movements then, giving rise to much opinion concerning the 1st July Demonstration and peaceful demonstrations. Such mode in protesting also gradually blends into the local protests.

How the Hong Kong "students" copied it
Quite a few of post-80s youngsters either directly participated in the anti-WTO protest, or witnessed their protesting means through the television. The influence from the farmers can thus be clearly seen in these youngsters’ participation in social movements.

The Korean "teachers" showed Hong Kong two ways out: peaceful protest for moral appeal with the element of performing arts, or militant protest to attract public concerns through physical confrontation.

We could clearly see the Korean influence from the protest against High Speed Railway in 2009. Post-80s youngsters impersonated "asceticism", initiating the 15-hour-per-day "5-constituency asceticism" in which participants knelt for every 26 steps they took, symbolising the 26-kilometre-long high speed rail (XRL). Protesters held rice and seeds with hands, representing public money and Tsoi Yuen Tsuen. It lasted for four days and three nights, from Sheung Shui Metropolis Plaza to LegCo until 8th January, the day of vote on the XRL appropriation, en route five Legislative Council geographical constituencies.

Anti-XRL movement is the beginning of the localisation of asceticism. (Apple Daily)

In subsequent social movements, i.e. strike at the container terminal, protest over the constitutional reform controversies, asceticism was also made use of by youngsters in showing their demands, in hope of raising people awareness on the issue as a result of such moral appeal.

Youngsters supported workers in the strike in the container terminal (2013; Apple Daily)

Some university students knelt and walked in Causeway Bay, asking people to join the 1st July Demonstration. (2014)

Apart from long kowtow, asceticism ‘had gradually mutated’, with examples of standing in silence, protest through reading or even throwing eggs on themselves. They are similar in the sense that they try to influence the indifferent people to beware of the concerned issues through afflicting their own bodies (long period standing, kneeling, dirtying the bodies). In doing so, they could expand their influence and have more people participating in social movements.

A "reading confrontation" by 21st Century Youth, with the meaning to defend independent thinking and be in pursuit of knowledge - said to be following an Italian movement, Sentinelle In Piedi.

A mother of two threw herself with 1,000 eggs, "to express the helplessness and guilt of not being able to change the future for the next generation", outside LegCo. (15 Jan 2015)

Yvonne Leung, president of 2014 cabinet of HKUSU, and other university students stood in silence in MTR stations and platforms to urge passengers not to forget the Tian'anmen Massacre. The placards they held read: "4th June 1989/Too sorrowful to remember/Dare not to forget".

Besides, singing is also an important item in performing protest in Hong Kong.

Such performing protest was once dubbed as ‘happy protest’ by Wan Chin, a political commentator, who said in his article,‘in terms of its modus operandi, happy protest is to face hardship, inspire and gather a crowd with contentment. It shall utilise the power of the crowd to make the suppressors fear, it shall spread the happy lifestyle of the public and thus make the suppressors ashamed and give in. By then we shall be freed.’ He disagreed with forced revolution back then,‘any beginning with forced protest would only make the disadvantaged even more frustrated: when the weaponry are so scanty and meagre as compared to the authority, it is a must to stir up an irrational hatred and an unprecedented war to annihilate humanity (e.g. terrorist attack), which shall only sacrifice many fellows. The authority would only put together an even more well-knitted ideology and implement even more brutal means.

‘Happy protest’ had quite a good impact at the first place, namely the much awareness raised after the 5-constituency asceticism during the protest against the XRL. Some of its participants are still pivots in social movements nowadays. But as time goes by, doubts have been casted on the effectiveness of such peaceful protesting means. People who are in favour of such means may even be called as ‘retards’.

The farmers’ image of militant charging has been influencing our local social movements bit by bit. While it was asceticism on this side, seizure of metal barricades and siege of the LegCo building were exactly the other side of the scene. There was even suggestion of occupying streets and roads (though it was rejected eventually).

After the WTOMC protest, grabbing barricades become one of the must-do in social activism, and is a symbol of "being radical". (left: Apple Daily)

The League of Social Democrats was formed in 2006 representing the proportion of radical democrats in Hong Kong politics. Three members of the League even became legislative councillors in 2008, enabling struggle with cooperation inside and outside of the Council.

Member of the League have had various so-called ‘radical’ actions over the years, namely ‘hurling bananas’or‘throwing eggs’at government officials. Apart from such radicalness in action, the League also initiated the ‘Five Constituencies Referendum’ with the Civic Party in 2010, which was regarded as a new attempt in Hong Kong democratic development. Though the League was split into two and led to the formation of the People Power in 2011, radical actions in the council and struggles on streets have never come to an end with ever growing support. In 2012, the People Power, the League and some independent councillors initiated a filibuster, shelving the new ministerial line-up proposal. Filibuster has also been adopted ever since by radical councillors as a usual practice in protest in the Council.

Hong Kong politics has only gone more gloomy after CY Leung took office. The Umbrella Revolution was the only result when the Hong Kong government ordered the police force to shoot tear gas grenades at the crowd gathering around the government headquarters on 28th September 2015 due to their opposition to the 31st August framework.

The Umbrella Revolution was regarded by quite a number as a milestone in Hong Kong social movement due to the various rare or even unprecedented protesting means adopted ever since the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong. Examples include self-initated blockade of roads leading to the total paralysis of all major highways in Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay and roadblocks reinforced with concrete and bamboo scaffolding.

Left: Breaking the glass of LegCo complex with barricade in Umbrella Revolution, 2014;
Right: Scrambling over barricades and shields in Korean farmers' protest, 2005.

Besides, protesters started to beware of the importance of self-defence. They purchased helmets, home-made shields and protective gears for cycling to defend against batons. They also protected their eyes from pepper spray with umbrellas, goggles or cling wrap. Face masks or even gas masks were used against tear gases.

Protesters even started having a sense to ‘attack’ instead of mere defending. Of course it was not like how the Korean farmers fought with the police in hand-to-hand combat or attacked with metal rods, but they did form L-shape bulwark and pressed against the police as how the Korean farmers had done. When the LegCo complex was charged, even though it stirred up much controversy, some might even criticise those initiators as ‘spies’, it shows that quite a number of people were no longer satisfied with symbolic radical actions like ‘hurling bananas’. They demanded and initiated more direct actions.

Left: Barricade bulwark in Umbrella Revolution; Right: by Korean farmers (Apple Daily)

These were never possible in the past ‘strolling demonstration’.

Localism has been on the rise since 2011 which even raised criticisms on traditional pan-democrats demonstration or even social movements led by the left wing. Wan Chin, the proposer of the City-state Discourse, said,‘the failure of the anti-XRL protest in 2009 was mostly due to its difficulty in carrying out populist promotion as a result of its relation with China's assimilation in Hong Kong, forced relocation of Tsoi Yuen Tsuen and agricultural conservation. Even though various means, i.e. filibustering, asceticism and conservation participation (I also assisted the post-80s social movement and proposed tactics in the ‘happy protest’) were used, it still ended in failure. I reflected for quite a while after that and made use of my own populist method in handling conflicts on China's assimilation in Hong Kong. Since then I went separate ways with the Post-80s social movement leaders. I made my decisions in 2012 on various matters -- to use populism or not, to summarise my discourse or uphold all truth, to succeed or fail and to protect Hongkongers’ livelihood or my own reputation. Many people has since recognised my changes. I am no longer all kind.’

He gradually constructed his own localist discourse since the start of the incident concerning the‘Action Plan for Livable Bay Area of the Pearl River Estuary’ and proposed the brand-new ‘valorous struggle’. Such is certainly a backlash to his formerly proposed ‘happy protest’, a criticism on past social movements which were only ‘peaceful, rational, non-violent and non-swearing’ (PRNN). People now must make a change in society through threatening the government with blood shed on and conflict with the police and the government.

Theory on valorous struggle has gained widespread support from youngsters. The direct confrontation between the crowd and the police force at Mong Kok during the Umbrella Revolution is regarded as an example of ‘valorous struggle’. Apart from that, one can also see light of valorous struggle from the restoration activities against parallel trading.

There is yet criticism on the bad impression on citizens that militant struggle may create and its damage on the image of democratic movement. Some also claimed that while the proposers of militant struggle never took the lead at the front and led the charge, they stirred up supporters to be mere ‘pawns’.

Saying Korean farmers enlighten the protection awareness of Hongkongers directly might not be so accurate, as Hongkongers already know what to do when the cops are pepperspraying. (Apple Daily)

Taking separate ways, or it is ‘all roads leading to Rome’?
Supporters of ‘happy protest’ and ‘valorous struggle’ have been criticising, teasing or being hostile towards each other in current social movements. The animosity may even be deeper than with the pro-Beijing camp. Both criticise one another’s tactics to be useless or may be counter-productive. Yet looking back at the display of the anti-WTOMC movement by the Korean farmers, we can see a total combination of ‘peacefulness, rationality and non-violence’ and ‘valour’: Korean 'aunties' gave out flowers and balloons to the police on one hand, digressed from the designated route when the police were inattentive or even assaulted them on the other; they influenced the passers-by with the pathetic asceticism, and attracted the media attention through physical confrontation at the same time.

Besides, a controversy over whether the crowd need any organisation or a stage with a leader has always been raised during the Umbrella Revolution. The Korean farmers’ manoeuvres were well organised and trained, who had even examined the venue and street environment before the WTO Ministerial Conference was held, according to the information from a participant; they also rehearsed their manoeuvres in their residing holiday camps during their period of protest in Hong Kong. Their actions were all well planned and drafted, considering the reaction from the locals. As Dae Jang-geum was then popular in Hong Kong, they thus played its theme song.

Both soft and hard approaches were adopted by the Korean farmers. While seizing the shields from the police, they returned right after the demonstration; flowers were given on one hand, fight was in the air on the other. They took different means according to the situation. No matter it was the militant or conciliatory side, they never criticised one another and cooperated closely together.

Militancy and peacefulness may seem to be two separate ways, they actually go back to one single path. Struggles in Hong kong yet further divide the two. Will there ever be a day when the two can be joint and their might can be fully manifested?

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.

Chan Ya-ming: Dared to Be Separated - No Stress, No Reform in HKFS

Dared to Be Separated - No Stress, No Reform in HKFS

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Chan Ya-ming (HKFS full member, Year 3 student in HKU)
Original: http://localpresshk.com/2015/02/change/

(Photo source: Pasu Au Yeung)

[Translator's note: HKU has already withdrawn from HKFS at the time this article is fully translated. Even we cannot do anything to overrule the decision, it is vital for all of us to understand the whys, and what are in front of us, so that we can prepare ourselves to the challenges ahead.]

I have studied in HKU for several years, and this is my first time speaking as a full member of Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS). I almost forgot I have such an identity, so do many of my classmates in HKU. It is understandable though, as all HKU students become full members of HKFS automatically since day one there, and the fees are handed yearly as a habit, so naturally it comes a born-to-be identity that no one realise its existence.

The referendum on whether HKU students should withdraw from HKFS makes us all think upon the following two questions which I suppose there is no easy answer to many: What is HKFS? What are the rights being a HKFS full member? Truth be told, before the withdrawal discussion started, I, too, have no idea where the answers lie. But now, as a member member, I hope the following I am about to say can shed light on the matter, so that you vote according to the sense.

Most students started to realise there is an organisation called HKFS since 28th September 2014 but only a few precisely understand its system. For the test of the people, the impression over HKFS merely focuses on the "Five Leaders of HKFS". On the stage of the occupied area, they spoke with moral halo. At the time, their halo, so as their authority were unprecedented. But the question is, where does their authority come from? Theoretically, it should be empowered by us, the full members. But when and in what ways did we empower them with such authority?

Sec-Gen: Generated by Coterie Election
The "Five Leaders" include Alex Chow (Secretary-General), Lester Shum (Vice-Sec-Gen) and Eason Chung Yiu-wah (Standing Secretary of the Secretariat), combined with Yvonne Leung and Nathan Law (both chief spokespersons), who are elected as the presidents of the Student Union in HKU and Lingnan U respectively. Being not the presidents of the Student Union, the former three from the Secretariat which I assume most members have no idea what it is somehow hold the main titles. Why?

According to HKFS's Charter, the Secretariat is the supreme organ of the HKFS. Metaphorically speaking, the Secretariat is the counterpart of the HK government, and the Sec-Gen acts as the role of the Chief Executive of HKSAR. Knowing that the Secretariat is such powerful, it leads to another question — Were Chow, Shum and Chung elected for the positions? No. Before 28th September 2014, I believe most students in HKU do not know who is Lester Shum nor Eason Chung.

A Sec-Gen, without the foundation of a legitimate electorate, bearing potent responsibility on not only the enforcement of certain decisions, but also decision-making itself, resembles the selection of the CE. At the time when Alex Chow was elected as a Sec-Gen, he received some 60 votes — much lower than 689 (CY Leung). How embarrassing it is for an organ pursuing democracy?  Who were the voters? Ordinary members like you and I were not given the right to vote, but only the Delegation of HKUSU and other schools' SU have such a privilege.

The delegation of HKUSU this year includes Yvonne Leung and other four delegates, who by the way are not elected, but appointed by the HKUSU Council. Having a low legitimacy, the Council still is to vote for Sec-Gen on behalf on all full members.

That is to say, the Sec-Gen and other major posts in HKFS are elected through indirect election, rather similar to the existing election system of the CE in HKSAR. If the HKFS acknowledges the legitimacy behind the election of Sec-Gen, they are to acknowledge that of the CE as well. This is apparently at odds with our pursuit of democracy and freedom.

HKFS Cannot Even Represent Full Members
During the occupy movement, many said "HKFS does not represent me". Indeed, HKFS cannot represent all Hongkongers. Worse still, under its current system, it is no way that HKFS can even represent its full members. Full members should have the right to elect major positions, such as the Sec-Gen, and the right to monitor them. Without such fundamental rights, we have paid the fees for years for nothing. It is the top priority for HKFS to undergo an overhaul — establishing universal suffrage for major positions in the Secretariat. To fundamentally temper HKFS thus and so, democratic spirit is enhanced, the full members' hearts will stay, and above all, it will proved to be beneficial for later social movements.

After weeks of debates, I would say I do not entirely agree with the points made by the Withdrawal Concern Group, nor the claim that HKUSU can be on a par with HKFS or the Scholarism. Yet, still, I hold my doubts over Alex Chow's claim that the internal reform of HKFS towards universal suffrage can solve all problems.

It is not Alex Chow's determination that makes me hold back, and in fact I do believe his spirit. But the fact that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" implies that the reform can never be underway automatically. There is always conservative power and vested interests in an organisation. In the world history, it is seen that reforms often take place due to external pressure. And for a person who is about to retire from the seat, how is he going to guarantee this promise?

It Is Now the Time for Reform
Without this referendum towards the withdrawal from HKFS, people would not know about the pedantic system long existed in this organisation, nor have the chance to express their dissatisfaction over HKFS's performance. We should know that the referendum is a pressure encouraging HKFS's internal reform. The extent of such pressure hinges on the votes of supporting withdrawal. If there are too few, the motivation to reform will remain low. There is no need to worry rapprochement — According to the HKFS Charter, HKUSU is free to come and go.

It is the era of reform. Before the huge project reforming Hong Kong, we should start with the HKFS. The problematic system in HKFS has existed so long, and it needs to be cure through such a surgery. The malicious attacks towards the withdrawal are no more than CCP-style tactics. As students in HKU, we shall, with conscience and rational judgement, decide the future of ourselves, of HKFS, and of Hong Kong!

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?