[4 June 2019] Joey Siu: Unite regardless of generation and protest on 9 June

Unite regardless of generation and protest on 9 June

By Joey Siu, Acting External Vice President of Provisional Executive Committee of the City University of Hong Kong Students' Union
in front of Hong Kong Cultural Centre on 4 June 2019

大家好，我係香港城市大學學生會臨時行政委員會署理外務副會長邵嵐。

三十年前嘅北京，一眾中國學生主導發起咗要求中共政府正視社會問題，建設民主中國嘅八九民運。然而，數以萬計嘅學生對民主自由嘅渴求不但得唔到政府嘅重視，更加換嚟咗6月4日凌晨嘅屠城慘劇。冰冷嘅坦克車徹底粉碎咗莘莘學子對民主自由，對公義嘅希望。

三十年後嘅香港，中共政權一次又一次肆意妄為咁想摧毀香港嘅核心價值。由否定梁天琦參選資格到褫奪四位民選議員議席，人大釋法、到今日，中共試圖藉修訂逃犯條例徹底摧毀香港嘅法治，將我地嘅家園變成中共政權下嘅一個城市。

關於六四，近年嚟經常聽到老一輩批評年輕人唔出席支聯會舉辦嘅六四燭光晚會。作為一個香港人，我都選擇唔出席支聯會嘅燭光晚會，建設民主中國並非一眾生於斯，長於斯嘅香港人要承擔嘅責任。即使拋開身份認同而言，痴心妄想咁要求一個如此血腥嘅政權去平反三十年前嘅過失，還人民民主自由更加係天方夜譚。

但係，我仍然選擇悼念六四。作為一個學生，我希望藉悼念六四中犧牲嘅學生，時刻警醒自己，香港而家面對緊嘅，係一個幾咁橫蠻嘅政權。作為一個學生領袖，我希望藉悼念六四話比更多人聽，特別係已經唔可以再從課本上完整咁了解六四事件，更年輕嘅一代知，究竟中共有幾殘暴不仁。

五十年大限過去未夠一半，但中共已經迫不及待赤化香港，香港人一直引以為傲嘅法治精神，自由民主可謂經已蕩然無存；而家，就連最基本嘅集會自由，言論自由都岌岌可危。

港共強推送中惡法，我唔知道我哋下年仲可唔可以喺同一地方悼念六四。喺德國流亡嘅黃台仰為紐約時報撰文時話「送中惡法通過，香港將會死亡」。香港危急存亡之際，我哋更加要銘記歷史比我哋嘅教訓，無論老一輩定係年輕一代都應該放低成見，團結反抗惡法。

香港人，6月9號，我哋維園見。

Hello everyone, I am Joey Siu, the Acting External Vice President of Provisional Executive Committee of the City University of Hong Kong Students' Union.

So, first I have to apologize for not having an English version of my speech. But what I want to say is, we all should remember the June 4th movement. We all should remember how cruel can the Chinese government be. No one can save us - only we Hongkongers can save ourselves. As a Hongkonger, as a student, as a student leader, I am willing to voice out for my country, for my homeland. So, 9 June, let's meet at Victoria Park, thank you.

------

(The following is the translation of her Cantonese speech.)

Hello everyone, I am Joey Siu, the Acting External Vice President of Provisional Executive Committee of the City University of Hong Kong Students' Union.

Three decades ago, in Beijing, lots of Chinese students had led the movement in 1989, demanding the CCP government to face squarely to the problems in society and to build a democratic China. Yet, the desire for democracy and freedom by tens of thousands of students was neglected by the government and ended up in a tragedic slaughter in the early hours on 4 June 1989. Cold tanks completely crushed students' hope for democracy, freedom and justice.

Three decades later, in Hong Kong, the CCP regime has time and again showed its fervent desire to destroy the core values of Hong Kong. From disqualifying Edward Leung's candidacy to disqualifying the seats of four elected lawmakers, from NPCSC's Basic Law interpretation to what is happening now - utterly tarnishing the rule of law in Hong Kong by trying to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO). They want our homeland to become a city under the CCP regime.

In recent years, we can often hear criticisms from people of the older generation about youngsters not attending the candlelight vigil in Victoria Park. As a Hongkonger, I choose not to attend the one in Victoria Park by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. To build a democratic China is not a responsibility on the shoulders of Hongkongers, who are born and bred here. Putting aside identity issue - fantasizing a brutal regime to vindicate the mistake it made three decades ago and allow democracy and freedom is simply ridiculous.

Still, I choose to commemorate June 4th. As a student, I hope to alert myself the barbarism of the regime Hong Kong is now facing by remembering those sacrificed students in Beijing. As a student leader, I hope to tell more people - especially the younger generation who can no longer learn about the incident completely from textbooks - how brutal the CCP is.

Half of the deadline of "unchanged 50 years" has passed, yet the CCP has an urge to turn Hong Kong red. The rule of law, which Hongkongers are proud of, as well as freedom and democracy, can be described as "it's over". And now, the freedom of assembly - the most fundamental right - is in jeopardy.

The CCP wants to steamroller the draconian FOO amendment. I do not know whether we can commemorate June 4th at the same place next year. Ray Wong, now in exile in Germany, wrote on New York Times that if the FOO amendment is passed, Hong Kong will be dead. At this critical moment of Hong Kong, we should remember the lessons from history. Regardless of older or younger generation, we should put our differences aside and unite to oppose this draconian law.

Hongkongers, let's meet at Victoria Park on 9 June.

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.

Marcus Lau: Reflections & Analysis after Election

Reflections & Analysis after Election

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Marcus Lau Yee-ching (Former editor-in-chief, Undergrad, HKUSU) [1027, 05 Sept 2016]
Original: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1134648589937655&set=a.122206674515190.20330.100001775756809&type=3 

The outcome of the LegCo election is basically decided. [By the time of writing,] the accurate figures were not released, but looking at the seat distributions, there are some points worth looking at.

1 – The Election in HK Will Soon Become “Malaysian-style” Election

Please bear in mind that there are five candidates being screened out (Edward Leung, Chan Ho-tin, Nakade Hitsujiko, Chan Kwok-keung, Alice Lai) due to their political stances. So no matter what, this election is by no means a democratic one, but an unconstitutional election waiting to be overturned. Ridiculous things happened during the election campaign period showed that the election in Hong Kong will gradually be interfered and manipulated by the government in different ways. First, presiding officers of poll stations can take ballot boxes home, but the luggage boxes with ballot papers were not even sealed. On the election day, some voters saw others using a photocopy of HKID card to vote, some voters “were voted by others”, some votes were considered invalid as they were torn a bit; power outage was seen in a poll station in North District. During vote count period, a presiding officer delayed the vote count result (Kowloon Park station), and a station had some “extra fake votes” in the ballot boxes (Sheung Tak station, Tseung Kwan O), etc. The government has lots of ways to interfere elections. If there are LegCo elections in the future, they would be rather dim.

2 – New Social Activism Bloc is Formed

Three members from the new social activism bloc (or “Demosisto” bloc), Lau Siu-lai (Kowloon West), Eddie Chu Hoi-dick (NT West), Nathan Law (HK Island), won with higher percentages of votes. Three of them gained the most votes in the non-establishment camp in their constituencies, and this is quite surprising to everyone. “Demosisto” bloc supported self-determination and non-violent confrontation. It took a “left-leaning” stance  economically, supporting universal retirement protection and advocating social connections. However, this bloc failed to mention the crux of HK-China relationship, such as the approval right of One-way Permit and the welfare of new mainland immigrants. What do their higher percentages of votes symbolise? Since the Umbrella Movement in 2014, the rise of the new social activism bloc has shown a different image from other traditional activist parties, which emphasised on their connections with workers or the grass root. The young, fresh and reforming image of the new social activism bloc has gained lots of support from the “Umbrella Generation”. Both being first-timers in LegCo Election, “Demosisto” bloc outperformed Youngspiration, and perhaps this is what localists should reflect on. Nathan Law was more known after the Umbrella Revolution, while Eddie Chu has participated in the protest against the removal of Queen Pier back in 2006. Chu kept on revealing the collusion between “government, commercial sector, rural sector and triad gangs”, and Chu's connections and network can never be underestimated. However, Lau Siu-lai has few “groundwork” in her constituency. After “coordinating” with Oscar Lai in less than half a year ago, Lau won with over 30,000 votes, and this is worth noting [Translator's note: final votes obtained – 38,183]. 

With the entry of “Demosisto” bloc, the huge “leftist social activism industry chain” will return. With lots of resources from LegCo, the key would hinge on students' unions across different universities. Opinion leaders around this chain, such as Chow Po-chung and YC Chen, will also return, after a period of silence. For localists or independence supporters, it would be a challenge to strengthen the localist forces formed in the tertiary education sector in the past two years.

3 – More Fragmented Landscape in LegCo

With people recommended by Chinese Liaison Office entering the Council (Junius Ho, Eunice Yung, etc.), the forces of New Pro-Beijing Bloc (NT rural sector, Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong and New People's Party) will be more solid. During an interview with the press, Nathan Law said he will not participate in the pan-dem joint alliance and will be on his own. For localism camp, originally there was only one seat (Raymond Wong), but now there are 2 from Youngspiration (Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung) and 1 from Civic Passion (Cheng Chung-tai), totalling 3 seats. Although both camps had some arguments with each other, two organisations share the most similar minds among all first-timers, so it is believed that there are rooms for cooperation in the future. The pan-dem camp has not changed much, so I would not comment for now.

Fragmentation of the Council becomes the trend, and for now, I cannot foresee any figure who can unite people from establishment camp or non-establishment camp, so it is expected that there will be no major breakthrough in the Council for the coming four years. The core of Hong Kong politics will still be “from streets to Council”. With lots of blocs in the council, there will be more variables. I cannot tell whether it is a blessing or a curse as of now, but I believed that a change, no matter a better one or a worse one, must be done to change the current plight in Hong Kong.

4 – Pan-dem's “Backroom Deal” - VotSonar – Plays Vital Role

VotSonar was initially a joke due to its small amount of sample size. However, Apple Daily listed a “support/sacrifice” (S/S) list [棄保名單] from VotSonar and used its media influence to promote such list. Yet, such S/S list was only supported by around 40,000 users and these users do not even know how the list was calculated. No one really knows how the list was generated. When the list was all over Apple Daily, the list became an indicating S/S list for the entire Hong Kong. Many voters who have not vote around the evening voted according to the list. According to the S/S list for NT East, my friend's family gave three votes to separate candidates, Gary Fan, Ray Chan (Fast Beat) and Fernando Cheung. The influence of the S/S list was much stronger then the participants of VotSonar, and there are even suggestions to cast all votes for Slow Beat (Tam Tak-chi) in Kowloon East.

VotSonar has a great excuse – to send as many non-establishment candidates into the council as it can. It used precious votes to support pan-dem candidates, some of which may be at risk, eventually sacrificing localist candidates. Take Kowloon East as an example, as “78% voters do not want to vote for Wong Yeung-tat”, so the plan “does not have to consider Wong”. When this result was spread out by Apple Daily, voters only have to know they have to cast all votes to Slow Beat, but voters would not know Wong Yeung-tat was not considered by VotSonar. Same case for Raymond Wong, Baggio Leung and Horace Chin Wan-kan. This is absolutely misleading voters. Apple Daily has once and again supported pan-dem candidates by using its media influence. These pan-dem councillors are mostly on the position of sinecures. Three decades have passed, do we have more time to waste anymore?

Now, “quitting” strategy. Few days before the election day, Civic Party's Sumly Chan and Labour's Suzanne Wu quitted the election by ending their campaigns. Even if this cannot “transfer” votes, this can show that the situation of the pan-dem is on the brink. With VotSonar S/S list, swing votes will go to non-establishment camp naturally. Candidates from the pan-dem camp quitted nearly at the same time, but is that just a coincidence? The last candidate who quitted was Kwan Wing-yip from Neo Democrats, and he said the “withdrawal” was the “darkest day in his political career”. Sumly Chan said he has spent every cent of his own for the election, and has no idea to pull out. Suddenly he had a press conference with other candidates on the same day. If you link the financial sources behind these parties, you can understand why there is such “collective pull-out”.

VotSonar-Apple Daily-S/S strategy integrated together and boosted pan-dem candidates. The outcome showed that those ranked lower in election polls, such as Ray Chan (Fast Beat), Nathan Law, Ted Hui and Fernando Cheung, got more votes than polls would have expected. It showed that the plan worked out, but the devil in the detail is as dirty as pro-Beijing camp's “number in the palm”.

5 –

I guess you can figure out how localist camp can reflect. But if I put it straight, I believe you will not listen, so I will leave it blank. The only thing I'd say is, we have chosen the easiest yet the most stupid way, and those who share similar ideas were harmed.

Conclusions

There are lots of other things that worth analysing, but I will leave that to others. I would like to encourage those who felt disappointed to this election, especially localists, “Pass on the torch. Never give up the faith. Keep the light burning.” (from The Grandmaster). I cannot say this election is a victory [to localist camp – translator's note], but I can still see the slightest hope in danger. We must not be frustrated, because, we are nothing but the only Hongkongers in the world. We are still the masters of this land.

The world will eventually belong to us.

Statement of the Generation: 11 Our 2047

Statement of the Generation: Our 2047

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

[DIRECTORY: AT THE END]

In his election platform, Edward Leung (from Hong Kong Indigenous) proposed to commence the 2nd round of negotiations and use of referenda to determine Hong Kong’s post-2047 future. On the other hand, in a New York Times interview, Joshua Wong said he will form a new party and join the LegCo election in September 2016. He will use the next 10 years to foster support for a referendum on Hong Kong’s future and self-determination.

The responsibility for bringing the issues of the second negotiation for Hong Kong’s future to the attention of all Hongkongers will belong to this generation. 

In retrospect, we were not born during the 1st negotiation for Hong Kong’s future, so we can only look at the silhouette of history to identify the roots of Hong Kong’s plight. In 1971, PRC replaced ROC to represent China, and in 1972, Hong Kong was removed from the UN's list of colonial territories. Since then Hongkongers, as colonial subjects, have lost the right to exercise self-determination granted by the UN.

In his memoir, Chung Sze-yuen, the LegCo and ExCo member, wrote that in 1984, Lydia Dunn, Lee Quo-wei and him met Deng Xiaoping. Deng immediately said the negotiation for the future of Hong Kong will only be settled by China and the UK. As for the so-called “three-legged stool”, it did not have three legs only two. Since then, Hongkongers were deprived the right to determine their own fate. 

In 1984, Zhao Ziyang and Margaret Thatcher signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which instituted the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China after 30 June 1997. Hong Kong commenced 14 years of waiting.

We once chose to believe China yet she has never kept good faith. Meeting Point, which later became Democratic Party, promoted Democratic Reunification widely. Meeting Point put the wager on China, anticipating she would reform, and Hong Kong would then have democracy. The Tiananmen Massacre did not falter the patriotic hearts of Meeting Point, nor the hope for Democratic Reunification.

History did not follow their wishes.  The current PRC regime is much more centralised and conservative than that of the 1980s. Hongkongers have waited since 2007/08 to 2012 to 2017 for everyone to wake up from the dream of democracy. Meeting Point became the pan-democrats now, occupying the council with slow reforms. 

For example, Emily Lau remains a Legislative Councillor since 1991. The pan-democrats control the resources and voice of the opposition and want to lead the next negotiations for the future, so as to ensure their parties political survival and perpetuate influence. Yet this will severely retard our progress. The pan-democrats do not understand the current China, and still harbour liberal fantasies for the eventual democratisation of authoritarian China. The belief in China’s inevitable march towards democracy is their blind spot. This is the cause of their failure to respond to the surge in localist thought and suffer a dearth of imagination about the resistance through social movements. They uphold the banner of absolute pacifism. When someone tries to break the box with physical resistance, they condemn these protesters and sever ties with them, leaving us, the “eggs” (the eggs/wall simile by Haruki Murakami), out there. Before the election, they will ask us to consider the bigger picture. We cannot repress the sense of helplessness at the shortsightedness of these people who have led the democratic movement for the past thirty years. They have eyes only for ballots but have no mind for the fresh thinking for Hong Kong’s future. The pan-democrats do not belong to this era which has no hope for democratic reunification. 

In 2014, we no longer needed to read literature or watch documentaries because we WERE there. We occupied the road. We were beaten by batons so hard that we bled and sore. The Umbrella Revolution is the greatest roar from this generation. We were naive, because we thought our tear and sweat might bear some fruits in Admiralty or Mong Kok, but this turned out to be futile. The failure of the umbrella revolution lies not only in the revolution itself, but also the Democratic Reunification theory We know that the era of democratic movements has passed, for it will be a tumultuous time of anti-authoritarianism. In early 2016, a policeman violated the Police General Order and shot towards the sky. The protesters hurled bricks as a way to resist. It might be a shock to witness, but it might be the prelude of a new model for resistance. 

All this is for we refuse to be slaves. 

The promise of 50-years of no change to Hong Kong’s way of life as enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration will expire  in 2047. The future of Hong Kong again becomes unknown yet society barely talks about it -  whether it be independence, maintain the status quo or become just another city in China. 2047 seems to belong to the distant future but people were already discussing 1997 in the late 1970s. Looking at the pace of “mainlandisation”, we need to prepare for the preparation of the 2nd negotiation for Hong Kong’s future. We have the following demands:

1. Hong Kong becomes an independent sovereign state recognised by the UN;
2. Establishment of a democratic government;
3. Design of the Constitution of Hong Kong by the entire community.

The HKSARG has become the puppet of the Communist Party. The governance of HKSARG sides with the CCP, undercuts the autonomy, and can be seen in cases like Northeast New Territories development, overspending limitlessly on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL), flattering CCP by developing Qianhai, or turning Hong Kong’s Policy Address into China’s Belt-and-Road Report. Even Hong Kong might not be strong enough in terms of “hardwares”, or China’s economy will still be strong, but our focus is not on CAN Hong Kong be independent, but rather, SHOULD Hong Kong be independent. We want to protect Cantonese, traditional characters, colonial period post boxes, the solemn institution of an independent judiciary, the unique culture and society in Hong Kong, and a democratic government for which the interests of Hong Kong is the first and foremost priority. These aspirations are not borne out of hatred, but comes from every heart and mind desirous of freedom. The struggle for independence will certainly not happen in the span of a day; we are only its beginning. There are plenty of “Greater China” supporters  who insist “it is hard for Hong Kong to have democracy if China does not have it”. But is democratising China easier than an independent Hong Kong? Absolutely not.

Though the Basic Law is the cornerstone of the “one country, two systems”, it never enjoyed the popular mandate of the Hongkonger people. Furthermore, the power of its interpretation lies in the hands of the Chinese Communists meaning that the Communists were free to make such interpretations based on their political whims. Even if we wished to amend the Basic Law we must first obtain the consent of two-thirds of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and the Hong Kong NPC Delegates, then submit a bill to the Politburo and the final say lies in the National People's Congress.

Even though constitutionally speaking it is not impossible for such thresholds to be crossed, unless the proposed amendments have the approval of the Communist Party, there is no hope of them going through. As the recent illegitimate, cross-border abduction of Lee Po demonstrates, when the Basic Law is breached, we Hongkongers have no means of enforcing the Law. The so-called One Country, Two Systems supposedly protected by the Basic Law is in reality very fragile. Before the aggressive red tide, our supposed defences are practically non-existent. Where something can be shattered, something can be established. The next step after invalidating the Basic Law is to draft a constitutional of Hong Kong. Due to the present political constraints, popular demand for a popularly enacted constitution cannot be enacted. However, it will be the result of the participation of the entire population of Hong Kong, enjoying concrete support as it represents our hopes and determination for independence, firmly establishing the foundation for Hong Kong’s future constitutional framework. 

We know that the path to independence is a distant one and will not be a result of just one generation’s effort. We must establish footholds in every arena of society: the streets, the Legco, the commercial sector, the unions, the media, the cultural sector; not one can be missed. Everything from the LegCo seats to local literature is the capital for achieving independence. Last year in September, Catalonia was able to obtain in parliament commencement of secession procedures after three hundred years of struggle. Within 18 months they realised independence. We as spectators are green with envy but must bear in mind the sacrifices of the Catalonians. From the late 1930s to mid-1970s, Catalonia endured severe repression under the dictator Franco. Local culture was forbidden, spread only through the underground which only added to the darkness that overhangs Catalonia. Yet, this only added to the swiftness of the independence efforts afterwards through the strong promotion of the Catalan language and establishing the ethnic pride of the Catalonian people. Hong Kong’s Cantonese culture swept across Asia in the 1980s proving that Hong Kong may be small but has the ability for a febrile cultural infrastructure. Such capital not only is a resource to console the spirit but also mandatory material to enlighten indifferent souls. 

The land resources of Hong Kong will once again encounter issues of ownership and a post-2047 credit crisis thus justifying the urgent need to commence the second round of negotiations. Before these negotiations begin, we must acquire popular support. Communist attempts to win over the youth have failed. Independent thinking once lost remains lost. Localism has grown steadily under the irrational oppression of the Chinese Communist Party. Coupled with the fact that our connection to China is far from that of our parents, we quote from Taiwan academic (who is of Hong Kong origin) John Lim Chuan-tiong: “the next generation of Hongkongers will be the natural independents, bearing by birth rich identification with the Hongkonger identity. This generation will oppose local communists’ collusion with the Chinese Communists and support Hong Kong’s right to independence. Unlike us, they will not have to fumble to find their identification nor will they be confused by the same conflict we felt about dual identities. They will inject energy into the independence movement and become our staunch ally.” 

Cringing is never an option for us.

If your civilization wants us to cringe, I'll show you the pride of savages till the end.
(Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale trailer)

Statement of the Generation

00 - Preamble

02 - The Possibilities of Education

10 - Awareness as a Nation and Mass Movement

11 - Our 2047

Lee Yee: The Rise of Localist and Radicals

The Rise of Localist and Radicals

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Lee Yee
Original: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20160310/19523270 

Edward Leung Tin-kei, the NT East localist candidate who supported "resistance without bottom line", garnered over 66,000 votes. This is the most important trend people should be focusing in this by-election. Leung is different from the establishment camp or the pan-dems. He has no political background, or so-called "fundamentals". After the by-election, Alvin Yeung said some people might support Leung but voted him because they do not want Holden Chow to win. There should have been more votes for Leung in this sense. As a nobody in the political circle, it shows more voters support localists and radical means when Leung got 15% votes.

Two or three years ago I have already said localization and radicalization will be the trend for democratic struggle in the future. In these years, many new discourse appeared, such as City-state Autonomy, Rewriting Constitution, "Brenter" (to return to British rule), Hong Kong Nationalism, Reform Hong Kong and so on. In the establishment, John Tsang or Jasper Tsang mentioned about local feelings or protecting local languages and culture. Holden Chow said their party's local awareness focus on not to cause further conflicts between China and Hong Kong.

The fundamental reason why localists rise is because of the HK-China integration boosted by the HKSARG. In the conflicts, all policies are sided with mainland Chinese and sacrificed the interests of Hongkongers. IVS scheme cramping Hong Kong, milk formula, mainland pregnant mothers and their children, smuggling in the North district, Northeast NT exploration are all about livelihood. White elephant projects such as Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail (XRL), or Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge are conducted because such projects can "bring mainland and Hong Kong closer" (not to mention such projects are contracted by Chinese companies instead of Hong Kong ones). Localists are just those who resolutely stand on Hongkongers' side amid so many HK-China conflicts. For the time being we might put other discourses aside. If one talks about "local feelings" but has no feeling about those projects that suck up Hongkongers' money and satisfy the needs of mainland China, then that is by no means "local feelings" but allegiance to China. Talking about "not causing further conflicts" but still supporting those sacrificing projects are seemingly neutral, but far from "local awareness".

The rise of localist is absolutely related with traditional pan-dems neglecting Hongkongers' interests. In so many HK-China conflicts, when Chinese interests overrode Hong Kong, we cannot see any support pan-dem "celebrities", but rather, these pan-democrats even said "localists activities are discriminating against mainlanders". When there was a bill about "putting Hongkongers first", pan-democrats even voted against or abstained, or held press conference on backfiring the stance of such bill. Pan-dem also went to UN Human Rights Committee to spread the message of "Hongkongers are discriminating against mainland Chinese". When they support what the establishment camp supported, such as condemning localist actions or vote for the white elephant projects, Hongkongers who want to defend our very own rights can no longer trust these "politicians". That was how localists rise.

In the struggle for Hong Kong interests, localists became alone in the political field and beaten up on streets. Their so-called radical acts are but struggles under oppression when compared to other countries. Alvin Yeung said more people supported localist and radical acts, so he said there should be an overhaul in pan-dem. He even praised "Leung's courage and purity are the key factors in such overhaul". Looking back and having an in-depth review is the starting point for a self-examination for pan-dems.

(Analysis for Pan-democrats: 2)

Fong Chi-hang: Subjectivity in HK Football Team

Subjectivity in HK Football Team

Translated by Vivian L., written by Brian FONG Chi-hang
Original: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20151118/19377462 

• Hong Kong held China to a 0-0 draw in a World Cup qualifier match on Tuesday night at Mong Kok Stadium

Hong Kong’s World Cup qualifier match against China came to an end on Tuesday night as the city’s team battled its rival to a valiant 0-0 draw. Prospect for team Hong Kong aside, we have witnessed the birth of a new era as the games progressed—a new age of the "Hong Kong subjectivity".

To say football [or soccer as the Americans say] has nothing to do with politics is a lie that cannot fool anyone with half a brain. In fact, football [translator's comment: or any team sports for that matter] more often than not embodies the nexus between sports and politics. Football is the battleground between bitter rivals both on and off court (for example England─Argentina or Japan─South Korea). It also reflects the conflicts between a state's centralised power and its peripheral groups (centre-periphery conflicts).

Political scientist Benedict Anderson defined a nation as an imagined community [translator’s note: In contrast with an actual community where members interact with each other face-to-face, an imagined community is constructed socially, and imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group]. Awareness of such a community is usually through symbols.

Star players pegging away on the pitch, fans cheering for their heroes, team flags and banners filling every corner of the fully seated stadium—the game of football provides the perfect concoction of the construction of subjectivity of the “periphery” community.

Examples of centre-periphery conflicts exemplified in football symbolisms are abundant.
Football clubs Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao are both the mascots and arenas of the Catalans' and the Basques' defiance against the Spanish state. In Verona, Italy, one lives and breathes a sense of the proud Venetian identity. Go to a Cardiff City game and you will see the mutual grudge between the Welsh and the English in action. Over in the French cities of Bastia and Rennes, the regional identities of the people of Corsica and Brittany cannot be more apparent in their home teams.

Today’s Team Hong Kong may not be the best squad in the city’s history, but it is certainly the team that carries the strongest sense of subjectivity of the Hong Kong identity. The match-up between HK and China inadvertently set the stage where Hongkongers defied “the Chinese Celestial Empire” at a time when China’s oppression towards the city is in full throttle while Hongkongers reap an ever-strong sense of Hong Kong subjectivity.

As team HK delivered two electrifying draws against China, every cheer and chant that echoed all around the city marked the birth of the Hong Kong Subjectivity. Our time has come and the political discourse between Hong Kong and China will never be the same.

(Author Dr. Brian FONG Chi-hang is the Associate Director of the Academy of Hong Kong Studies at The Hong Kong Institute of Education)

Chan Ya-ming: Liaison Office's Belligerent, Local Awareness Raised

Liaison Office's Belligerent, Local Awareness Raised

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Chan Ya-ming
Chan Ya-ming is the former editor-in-chief in The Undergrad, HKUSU.
Original: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150916/19297233 

Zhang Xiaoming overtly belittled the legislature and judiciary and lifted the status of the CE - this is in line with the policy of "Sai Wan/Western district ruling Hong Kong" (西環治港). But those Communists did not realise that what they did has just worsened the situation.

Before 1997, the Communist Party had a plan of three "reunifications": sovereignty, jurisdiction and people's hearts. The sovereignty was transferred in 1997, but the jurisdiction has not. Lots of measures have been done to "reform the jurisdiction": tightening of "high degree of autonomy" since 1997, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" became "Party's people ruling Hong Kong" and the establishment of the Second Ruling Core.

As to people's hearts, or "youth work" in CY's words, refers to changing the mindsets of Hongkongers. It might take a few generation but this is what worries the Communist most. Since 2012, the Second Ruling Core of Chinese Liaison Office has floated to the surface in interfering the politics in Hong Kong. CY Leung is but a puppet carrying Sai Wan's order. The establishment camp is not managed by the CE either, instead, Sai Wan again. After the constitutional reform saga on 18th June 2015, the pro-Beijing camp directly went to Sai Wan and explain it to Zhang, not even explaining to CY Leung. Since a thoroughly-red person became a CE, the jurisdiction has been shifted to Sai Wan. The Second Ruling Core actually became the first.

By lifting the status of Leung, Zhang trampled upon the legislature and judiciary, as to further alter the jurisdiction. Now, the bête noire of Beijing is the right of denial in the hands of pan-dem in LegCo, or the bigger one being, not yet exercising control over the judiciary. In the eyes of Communists, the Judiciary is the political tool of the ruling class, and must be held in the hands of the Party. But in a short period of time, Sai Wan cannot control the judiciary. Belittling legislature and judiciary and lifting the status of CE to "being superior over the powers" is the way of Sai Wan in altering the jurisdiction. At the end, lifting the status of a puppet is to remove the autonomy and transfer the authority to the Party.

The main reason of doing so is because CY performed badly in opinion polls, and he has no friends in the establishment camp, and therefore has to rely on the Liaison Office to keep his post. But no only is he having a poor performance in public opinion, the pro-Beijing camp is dissatisfied by him. The Liberal Party recently became the antagonists of CY's opinion of "appropriately proactive". James Tien has become an opponent after saying Leung should resign. Leung reaps what he sows - after firing Tsang Tak-sing, the brother of Jasper Tsang (both are traditional leftists), Leung caused the schism within the pro-Beijing camp. This is something what Sai Wan did not foresee.

To the Party, "winning the hearts and minds" is the real reunification. Leung's governance is extremely in line with this, from National Education to using his authority against The Undergrad. After the Umbrella Revolution, Leung did not respond with carrot, but a bigger rod instead, and even said youngsters should leave Hong Kong for further development.

After almost a year, Sai Wan still keeps on lifting the status of a CE without legitimacy, causing further abhorrence among the millennials. The democracy path is completely blocked as Sai Wan rules. Youngsters are not the puppets of the Communists. By experiencing so much, they will think "One Country, Two Systems" is but a failure. Some softer pan-dem groups have their local discourse, and some others promoted Hong Kong Reform Discourse. Some non-localist students also wanted a referendum, as a reflection over the issue of the deadline in 2047. These are trends towards localism.

The Communist Party keeps on suppressing Hong Kong's democracy, and the failure of One Country, Two Systems by Sai Wan ruling Hong Kong are reasons of resistance among youngsters who support democracy, and thus strong localist sentiment has grown as a response. What a karma!

The "HKU" June 4th Vigil: Observations

The "HKU" June 4th Vigil: Observations

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by CityU SU Editorial Board (30th)
Original: https://www.facebook.com/cityusueb/posts/667144190083243 
[The "We" mentioned in the article refers to CityUSU EB]

(CityU SU EB)

There are around 2,000 participants in the HKU June 4th Vigil (HKUJ4 Vigil; Tian'anmen Massacre happens on June 4th 1989), but people might wonder what is so special about it. CityUSU Editorial Board sends out our correspondents to three main vigil venues. We are not the host but believe the HKUJ4 Vigil is a subject worth discussion, hence we give our observation and comments below.

(1) Identity: Brooding on and thinking from the identity of Hongkonger

"Re-positioning" the identity of Hongkongers could be said as the main reason that leads to the HKUJ4 Vigil. We think this Vigil focuses more on what does Tian'anmen Massacre mean to us today, and on inspiring the participants and defining the value of Tian'anmen Massacre through discussions; where the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance; the host in Victoria Park) focuses on those particular moments in 1989, with aims to pursuing the accountability and strengthening people's memory. Therefore, the HKUJ4 Vigil carries on from the topic of Tian'anmen Massacre, and relates it to the current issues in our society. Comparing to the one in Victoria Park, you can see there is a difference on focuses: [Hongkongers/Chinese]; [Now/Then]. We are not saying that the HKUJ4 Vigil does not focus on those moments in 1989, but there are less emphasis.

(2) Method: Non-sentimental; no "political gains" for organisations

The HKUJ4 Vigil is a good starting point - with a more serious academic discussion, participants re-shape Hongkongers in different eras and identities, and have efficiently constructed a inter-generational discussion platform, which establish the significance and meaning of the June 4th vigil in relation to this day and age. There are some drawbacks too -- most of them are personal discourse without genuine interaction, but still, it is better than those organised by the Alliance or Civic Passion. This Vigil does not use gimmick to rally people to vent anger on the society, the establishment and the CCP. The Victoria Park (the Alliance) and Tsim Sha Tsui (Civic Passion) vigil use the commemoration as a tool to gather people. Confrontation starts from one's stance, but if mature discussion is skipped, it would become formulaic and superficial, thus hinders support and understanding.  Undeniably, these organisations have been at work dispensing their discourse via radio programmes and online articles. But when the public and the media did not accord them appropriate and sufficient attention, people could easily have doubts on their confrontation stance and action. Some might consider the discourse in the HKUJ4 Vigil might be considered as a waste of time, but we think it is the discussion platform Hong Kong needs.

What is worth mentioning: there were NO SING-ALONG; NO MEANINGLESS APPLAUSE; NO SLOGAN-CHANTING; NO GIMMICKS. They try to provide more academic support to the current "radical" confrontation and stance. But when they put aside the conventional rally model, how shall such vigil congeal Hongkongers? These are food for thought.

This is the first time Hong Kong Federation of Students abstaining from Tian'anmen Massacre vigil; this is the first time HKUSU starting its own vigil. New model of vigil has shown the change of era. The thought of "constructing a democratic China" has reached the critical point.

敘述，所以存在／還是被敘述，所以存在：試以臺灣為例—淺論香港主體意識的重構

敘述，所以存在

還是被敘述，所以存在

試以臺灣為例—淺論香港主體意識的重構

Written by Mak Heung-fai 麥向暉

Original: CityU Monthly 2015 April Edition

（蒙城大編委授權刊載，稍後將提供英文版）

(English version will be available soon. Authorised to be shared by CityU SU Editorial Board.)

當是非對錯，尚且糾纏於本土、偽本土、港獨還是一國兩制，而無日無之，距政改方案徹行的時間點，又迫在眉睫，此誠危急存亡之秋也。問題之紛至沓來，固謂亟待解決，然而，至關重要的解釋論述—「我是誰？」，仍然束之高閣。這個概念，顯然是身份認同問題，雖道是尋常，亦看似與眼下的脅逼無關宏旨。其實，身份與信念關係千絲萬縷，恰恰是辨除偽本土、港獨、一國兩制等偽命題之箭矢。拙文以為，身份問題只有重構屬於香港「主體意識」的前提下，才能理解何謂真本土、以至香港之核心價值，卒之決定去留統獨。泛論之，必難以道明，姑且引情狀相類的臺灣以略談—究竟我們「敘述，所以存在；還是被敘述，所以存在」？

Photo Credit: 劉明堂, 何豪毅, 黃謙賢/Taiwan People News

「主體意識」：存在的自我賦予

「主體意識」四字，於香港人，或許陌生非常；一海之隔的寶島，卻心領神會。跳出主權和從屬的非黑即白，擺脫政治角力的制肘，以一地為中心，重新追本溯源，找尋屬於該地原有之文化源頭，並以之為底基，旁及外來的多元文化，肯定一地之獨特性，進而在歷史、文化、經濟上加以闡揚，此之為「主體意識」。惟務須申明者為，主體意識在政治上，往往被外間解讀為「獨立」，實抹黑異見之舉也。前述之主體意識，乃從中性而言，一種自我本位的肯定，一旦就此作政治論述，政見不同者或重新把這拉入黑白二元的困局。臺灣之大漢族主義者，國民黨為首，認為臺灣為中國領土，不可分割，遂誣蔑持論者和民進黨人為伍，即「臺獨」。當然，「主體意識」跟「獨立」貌合，但神離，前者具較大包容性；後者排他性則較明顯，並據主體意識的意涵，採相對極端之論調。礙篇幅所限，不另多贅。

在上述前提下，臺灣自然不是中華民國，該處之落地者乃不折不扣之「臺灣人」。筆者起初也不明所以，在外人角度，臺灣完全跟中華民國劃上等號，而何以謂臺灣人，非為中華民國人？答案在於各人對臺灣「主體意識」的理解。上文就主體意識，淺嘗輒止，也不妨引套之。即是臺灣本來就有不假外求，迥異於別國的文化源頭，甚至民族源頭。最早居於臺灣者，原住民也，諸如泰雅族、阿美族、以及新近認可之拉阿魯哇族等，他們才是臺灣的主人，亦即是臺灣民俗的源頭，其活跡範圍遍及全臺灣，日後族與族之間的生活記憶，成為臺灣主體意識的主要來源。

「我們是臺灣人，不是中華民國人」

文化與歷史的追溯與認知，一直為國民之根本，關乎人民身份之認同。可惜礙於語言隔閡，文字闕如，而且各族尚停留在部落階段，各自為政，主體意識迄自未能凝聚，旋為西方列強所入侵，胎死腹中。直到日治「內地延長主義時期」，有「臺灣孫中山」之稱的蔣渭水、霧峰林家的林獻堂諸人成立「臺灣文化協會」，復興既有文化。臺灣史學家連璜杜撰、首部以臺灣為主角敘述的《臺灣通史》並時出世，始喚醒臺灣人的本土情懷，臺灣的主體意識由是發端。

成也蔣氏，敗也蔣氏，蔣渭水為首之協會，始終秉持着中國國族主義。在打着三民主義植根在臺之口號、復興原住民文化的同時，選擇性排斥部份臺灣的特殊文化，譬如臺灣之傳統劇種「歌仔戲」，雖發祥地是宜蘭，協會認為不值一哂，沒有戮力推揚，觀點反倒較同時代的林呈祿遜色。林則旗幟鮮明，處身日治政府同化政策當道之時，發動「臺灣議會設置請願運動」。簡言之，高度自治也。1928年謝雪紅之臺灣共產黨，政治取態遠比前兩者激進，矢言臺灣徹底獨立。三者相互激宕，60年代的彭明敏某程度上取萃其中，高唱臺灣的主體意識，再據此走上「臺獨」路線。緣是臺灣的主體意識毫無懸念，一連串野草莓、太陽花等本土運動，便從此概念流出。

歷史的「表徵」—「歷史記憶」與「歷史事實」

文化與歷史，關乎人民身份之認同，外來政府欲得政治的合法性，自然要從這兩方面着手，而歷史又有跟文化互為包容的傳統，如是者，篡改人民的「歷史記憶」，由政府取得話語權，敘述人民的「存在」，刻不容緩。論者才疏而孤陋，姑妄引臺灣中央研究院院士王明珂教授之理論，寥作淺解。「客觀存在的史事和文物，足以佐證一段往事之痕跡者，曰『歷史事實』，同時，人類種群，千差萬異，但無一例外，各自傳頌有關本族或本村源起的神話、傳說、靈獸等文化意象，一種主觀塑造自身存在的敘述方式，曰『歷史記憶』。」據王明珂教授之論，即便一河之上、中、下游各有一村，而客觀的材料可證明彼此有非常密切的關係，「歷史事實」也庶幾一致。然，親訪三村，問其傳說而繫乎其村之發軔，竟然大相逕庭，如上游可謂己乃山神之孕、中游道靈獸所生、下游言破石而出，傳說作為「歷史記憶」，決定了三村之分離獨立、生活習俗等，儼然非我族類，縱使「歷史事實」證明三村同源，他們依舊否定。

正因三者有着堅立千仞的自我主觀「敘述」，所以彼此的客觀「存在」便產生不同的分歧和差別。換言之，「歷史記憶」的敘述，會改變「歷史事實」的存在。若執政者有其用心，刻意竄改一地人民的「歷史記憶」，進而變易政權屬外來入侵的「歷史事實」，遂為自己的政權取得合法存在：人民因為「被敘述」，所以才向掌握話語權的人，以附首稱臣的方式「存在」。如此，極為危險。

存在的「被敘述」

上述情況一度發生於臺灣歷史中，最為明顯者，莫如日本和戒嚴時期的中華民國。臺灣史上，當然外來者，有宋朝、清朝時期的中國以及荷蘭，然而，論規模之盛、影響之大，斷然不及日本和中華民國。日本駐臺灣總督兒玉源太郎之副手民政長官後滕新平，於始政時期（1895－1919）已着眼於「歷史記憶」的修改，後來同化時期（1919－1937）進一步提升，皇民化時期（又作皇民化運動時期，1937－1945）則達致高峰。中日八年戰爭，總督小林躋造對當地人的「歷史記憶」大幅竄改，意圖重新打造成「皇國臣民」，使之盡為日本帝國利用，於是推廣國語（日本語）家庭、改姓名運動，臺民改為日本姓名、發展日本神道教，取締台灣傳統信仰、研習日本史等。長此下去，「歷史記憶」的再造勢必令「歷史事實」的臺灣主體意識被消弭，臺灣人形同「被敘述」為日本人，而以「皇民」的方式「存在」。

戒嚴時期（1949－1987）之中華民國與日本只是伯仲之間。蔣介石斯時剛失去中國江山，

(二·二八事件；圖片來源︰未知)

於是擬以臺灣為反攻基地，得以反攻大陸，可戰敗隨蔣抵臺之外省人以及軍隊，紀律敗壞，經濟處理又不善，而本身臺灣人被殖民統治百年之久，蔣亦畏共產黨潛伏臺灣，乃借戒嚴為名，極力打壓一切日治前後的風俗。益有甚者，原住民俱在禁制之列，如學校範圍內，不得用土著語言說話，違者罰款，製造「白色恐怖」，嗣後釀成「二‧二八事件」，戕害冤殺臺灣居民；與此同時，大力推行華夏文化，如將國語定為單一法定語言、修讀中國二千年的歷史等等，臺灣人無疑迎來第二次「歷史記憶」的改造，「被敘述」為中國人，而以「漢人」的方式「存在」。猶幸以上舉措，伴隨日本帝國倒臺、戒嚴時期撤消作罷，彭明敏、施明德等人又重申臺灣的主體意識，讓既有的「歷史記憶」連帶「歷史記憶」得到相當的恢復。儘管國民黨老調重彈，指臺灣為既有領土，亦無阻臺灣人繼承前人真正之主體意識、自我敘述的「歷史記憶」，因此和「歷史事實」契合，而確立以「臺灣人」的「存在」、一種獨立於日本、中國，並和兩者平起平坐之身份。

從未存在過的「香港本土派」

臺灣人還可如此，香港呢？似乎不容樂觀。其主體意識，只有近年，特別雨傘運動失敗後，始有萌芽之象，然，一直拘泥在真、偽本土之別，樞要之主體意識反倒不曾用心。論者不敏，以為主體意識之討論蒙塵，非獨謂時人冷感，實是英國政府刻意為之。蓋香港1842年開埠以先，與中國關係密切，唐軍屯兵、宋帝逃難，皆施於港，細心者，更留意到遠古時代，香港已有人聚居，縱遠古之人，隱歿久渺，莫之能求，惟此種種，悉為香港主體意識的一部分，又適英國作為宗主國，最為忌殫者，無他，慮香港人的主體意識醒覺，省察自身之獨特性，而發現英國僅借武力侵犯此地也，緣此發難，終結英國的殖民統治。

英國乃剛柔並濟，積極拉攏、打壓、分化這種主體意識。中學教育上刻意省略思辨性的哲學、改歷史為選修課，核心課程又以英國史為主，至於有關中國者，別目「中國歷史科」，顯然是受1953中文科檢討委員會報告書（Report of the Chinese Studies Committee）中，對中史教學「不宜過多政治化」的指示影響，香港史之課程，甚至1998年始獲準納入世界史講授課程之一部份。英方此舉，力圖避免惹起港人過多的本土意識，或者意識形態上向中國靠攏，斯時大學教育，仍未普及，故不詳細交待（按：大抵50年代末的香港大學，斯有英人安德葛在歷史系講授開埠以後的香港史，羅香林在中文系之香港史課，則偏重於香港開埠前的歷史），總之，英國漸次改造香港的「歷史記憶」，淡化港人對香港主體意識的理解，相關之體察、考量，自然不成氣候。後來，70至80年代末，英方苦心孤詣下，香港經濟騰飛，卓然成為亞洲四小龍之首，置身紙醉金迷的氛圍，日日絲管，夜夜笙歌，主體意識，落得個無關痛癢。妄論之，現時中國對港的治術，蕭規曹隨，不過主導者由英方換成中方，課程增逸，全然倒置為國族主義為中心思想的論述而已。可憐香港，由始至終，都是「被敘述」，所以「存在」：以英國治民、中國人民的身份「存在」。徒然97回歸挨近、雨傘運動，港人才偶爾思索之。

本土學術？

順帶一提，香港的主體意識，與本土學術不無關係。香港的主體意識一旦廓清，港人便可避免游談無根之弊，何為「真本土派」、「偽本土派」，不攻自破，所以，何去何從，是「統」、是「獨」，端見於此。惜哉香港主體意識的自我論述，在近數年方驟然冒起，而且觸及者，多流於「本土」真偽之皮相，鮮見坊間討論擊中主體意識此要害，更遑論本地學術界了。正當臺灣學者、中央研究院院士杜正勝提出「臺灣地圖左轉90度」論，從學術（歷史觀）角度敘述自身的主體意識，得到廣泛迴響；香港之主體意識，在本土學術之中，迄今未見辯述，或許，源於本土研究多在迎合國際，即學術國際化大潮中，不為大專院校的支持，而遭受消磨、冷落，民間更是和聲罕聞。香港的主體意識，乃被中國、香港政府取得話語權，橫加敘述。

人言人殊。這篇文章，追求獨立者或可以謂之提示香港底基的彌補，國族主義者可以貶損為鼓吹獨立，無論何者，一則此文影響力並沒有如斯可觀，二則「身份認同」的而且確須要釐清，拙文之要旨，即建基於「香港人」與「中國人」的身份平等而互不排斥的情況，思索我們當如何敘述自己的「存在」。以上之論，殊為鄙見，商榷之處，前輩同業，望加指證。