[The Standard/27.7.1989] Life after Tiananmen Square

Life after Tiananmen Square 

By JACKIE SAM, Features Editor, The Hongkong Standard on 27 July 1989

(Hong Kong Economic Journal)

THE ARTIST laid out four chamber pots in Victoria Park, Hongkong’s largest urban park, and invited Sunday strollers to defecate into them. As the large crowd laughed and giggled away, he dropped his pants and accepted his own invitation.

The chamber pots represented China’s four cardinal principles of socialism, Communist Party leadership, dictatorship of the proletariat and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought.

The artist would have gone all the way had a policeman not ordered him to put his pants on. He was not arrested and will probably try some other stunt another weekend.

Hardly a week goes by without the lunatic fringe pulling off a political stunt. No day passes without someone publicly demanding “Democracy now!”

This is Hongkong politicking at a frantic pace – without any sense of direction and no vision of the future. Worse, there is no sensible leadership in sight. The problem is compounded by a rising political consciousness among the six million people.

Hardly a week goes by without the lunatic fringe pulling off a political stunt. No day passes without someone publicly demanding “Democracy now!”. This is Hongkong politicking at a frantic pace – without any sense of direction, and no vision of the future.

The rude awakening came just before the tanks clattered into Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the early hours of June 4.

But for over 150 years under benign colonial rule, local leadership was neither needed nor encouraged. Only compradores were co-opted, both to give legitimacy to the system and to advise British bureaucrats on the ways of the Chinese. At most, they represented local business, largely Shanghainese interests.

Senior Executive Councillor (Exco) Dame Lydia Dunn and Senior Legislative Councillor Allen Lee Peng-fei, who is also an Exco member, are the largest inductees into this colonial order. Both have extensive business interests and both have family roots in Shanghai.

Dame Lydia is too closely identified with British interests to be able to offer credible leadership to a population imbued with a new-found sense of Chineseness. In any case, she does not seem interested in any significant role beyond the early 1990s.

(Books4you, 52nd edition via krislcc.wordpress.com)

Mr Lee, still harbouring some post-1997 ambitions in spite of the Tiananmen massacre, is also identified with British interests. Once touted as “the Lee Kuan Yew of Hongkong”, he has not tried to distance himself from Whitehall’s interests, though more statesmanlike in Sino-Hongkong affairs.

As Hongkong moves inexorably into China’s fold, the Whitehall luggage will be a liability. But this late in the day, politics remains at the parish-pump level, horizons remain narrow and naivete prevails. So the so-called liberals or democrats and the lunatic fringe who make the most noise have a field day.

This feature of Hongkong’s political landscape dominates the media, is the most exciting for recent tertiary institution graduates and is both the hope and bane of the Westernised elite. It is dominated by two men, Queen’s Counsel Martin Lee Chu-ming and trade unionist-school principal Szeto Wah.

(Mad Dog Daily)

Martin Lee is a very successful barrister, an articulate member of the Legislative Council, staunchly anti-communist, and idealistic to the point of arrogance. Like Dame Lydia, hs is a darling of the Western media. But his definition of democracy has not gone beyond the immediate introduction of universal franchise, and his disdain for the rough and tumble of grassroots politics makes him a poor leader.

Szeto Wah was previously suspect in the eyes of the expatriate community and the local Westernised elite. A good organiser, politically more astute than Martin Lee but with a limited knowledge of English, he was regarded as part of China’s united front on the colony. Until the student demonstrations and the June 4 massacre, he was more accommodating towards China than Martin Lee was.

Both men have spent months trying, without success, to set up a political party embracing all liberal and vested interest group.

In the past two years, these “liberals’ or “democrats” have etched out certain characteristics which will be very hard for them to eradicate in the coming years. First, no one wants to follow; everyone claims to be leader or spokesman. The result is endless squabbling, both in private and in public. They are divided by personal traits, social standing, wealth or lack of it, attitudes towards China and Britain, and education.

Secondly, this part of the political landscape is littered with pressure groups representing minority interests and mostly started for apolitical reasons. Except for a handful, they ate single-issue groups concerned with problems such as pollution, recovery of payments from bankrupt travel agencies, leaky roofs in public housing of conservancy. Their umbrella organisation, the Joint Committee for the Promotion of Democratic Government (JCPDG), embraces 101 groups.

The great majority represent only a handful of non-paying members, usually a dozen people. Most groups want to retain their separate identities while demanding an equal voice in the bigger issues. Most have about 200 members on whom little or no discipline can be imposed.

As the demand for greater political participation grows, the weaknesses of these pressure groups become more evident. They are locked into a pressure group mentally, devoting all their energies to one issue and lapsing into total inactivity till the next issue crops up.

The umbrella organisation, JCPDG, and the newly-established Hongkong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement in China cannot focus on anything beyond two weeks. As one academic puts it: “Anything beyond a fortnight means trouble. They start to argue, split hairs and disintegrate. So they plan rallies, seminars, pop shows and get everyone to focus on the immediate task to create an illusion of unity.” But on the vital issue of creating a party, unity of purpose and resolve continues to elude them.

Just before the student demonstrations in China, these groups, including Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, were being dismissed as irrelevant to the whole political process.

When the protests broke out, Martin Lee and Szeto Wah seized the issue to revive their “democratic” movement.

For about a month, they wallowed in unrivalled poplarity [sic]. They got carries away. Szeto Wah and some of his close associates called for the overthrow of the Chinese leadership, publicly exulting in financial aid they had given to students in China and the “underground” groups set up to whisk to safety student leaders on China’s wanted list.

Worrying

Emotions over those demonstrations have died down and many people are now accusing these democrats, especially Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, of putting Hongkong in danger. More internal squabbling, more public rallies and provocative stunts must be expected.

All these activities are worrying to the local business community. That is why they have been quietly applauding a recent People’s Daily editorial denouncing Martin Lee and Szeto Wah as “counter-revolutionaries” and warning Hongkong people against meddling in China’s internal affairs if they want their “one country, two systems” after June 1997.

While emotions ran high in the aftermath of the Tiananmen massacre and Martin Lee and Szeto Wah hogged the limelight, conservative elements kept a low profile. They are beginning to speak out again. Some observers believe these conservatives were behind the People’s Daily editorial.

The conservatives are as divided as the democrats or liberals are. But at least they have a vision of the future and are less inclined to quarrel in public. What they seek is simply a stable Hongkong, a timid, obedient and hard-working population, and a free hand to make as much money as possible – with China as a full partner in a Hongkong Inc.

The Tiananmen massacre has given an impetus to faster political reforms before 1997. The democrats or liberals say that a quickened pace will lead to the setting up of a representative government before sovereignty returns to China. This, they insist, will stop Beijing from interfering in Hongkong’s affairs.

China’s united front network, built up over the past 50 years, is intact, though its propaganda arms, the Wen Wei Po and the Ta Kung Pao, faltered during the month-long demonstrations and immediately after the massacre. Both newspapers are now being brought back into line.

But the little publicised parts of this united front have always been more important and are now an integral part of Hongkong’s political landscape. The key player here is the New China News Agency (Xinhua), China’s unofficial representative office in Hongkong.

The agency operates on many fronts at all levels. It has been successful in winning over a few Legco members and a large section of the local business community with complete dominance of the local chamber of commerce. It also has a strong hold on the retail trade through the handful of agency houses for foodstuff and consumer goods from China. The influence exerted on a tradition-minded, Chinese-speaking community is immense.

Network

Apart from above-ground operations, there is the underground network of the Chinese Communist Party itself. Operatives have been sent into Hongkong since the 1930s. The Kuomintang claims there are between 60,000 and 80,000 underground agents. Government sources say there are 20,000 to 25,000. The media and academics accept the lower figure.

These agents live among the people, work as lowly-paid employees in the private sector or run retail businesses. According to one police source, many have moved into the lower echelons of the public service, especially the immigration service. Their role is widely believed to be to influence grassroots thinking and to keep Beijing informed of developments.

In the coming weeks, this network and the united front will be activated to give Hongkong a propaganda blitz it has never seen before. The aim is to assure the people of their future.

It will be a Herculean task. But Beijing is not overly worried if the effort fails. Since the 1970s, it has been grooming a corps of believers to run the territory. That is something that many Hongkong people fear as well.

The best hope for Hongkong as a financial and trading centre remains a combination of British-trained administrators and local business interests, with Beijing’s hand operating discreetly behind the scenes, supported by a hardworking, apolitical population.

But with the liberals and the lunatic fringe allow this? Would the newfound nationalism of Hongkong people who fear communism allow them to remain bystanders while a big chill sweeps across the mainland?

Whatever the answers, it promises to be very interesting into the year ahead.

[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.

Letter from David Ford to Civil Servants of Hong Kong on 16 June 1989

Letter from David Ford to Civil Servants of Hong Kong on 16 June 1989
布政司霍德1989年6月16日致全體公務員的信

Translated by Chinese Language Authority, Civil Service Branch, written by David Ford
霍德撰寫、銓敍科中文公事管理局譯

(In June 2018, a Facebook page Rufixation posted this letter, which was found in a former government department office. With authorization, we have typed the full text in English and Chinese for people to refer upon in the future.)
（2018年6月，Facebook專頁荒凝止息張貼這封在前政府部門辦公室找到的信件。經授權，我們將英文及中譯本打出，以供日後有需要人士參考引錄。）

Dear Colleague,

At this time, we in the civil service share with the community as a whole a profound feeling of shock and grief at the recent bloodshed in Peking. I am sure that you, like most people in Hong Kong, are watching with the concern the way in which the situation in China develops. We must all hope that the moves to modernize and liberalize China will be given fresh impetus in the years ahead.

Despite their anger the people of Hong Kong have reacted to recent events in China with tremendous dignity and restraint. This is particularly so in the case of the civil service and my purpose in writing to you is to thank you all for your dedication and responsibility in these troubled times. You have continued to provide the community with a standard of service of a level of which you can be proud, while at the same time demonstrating solidarity with the rest of the people of Hong Kong. Your loyalty to Hong Kong and all it stands for is highly appreciated.

The tragedy of recent weeks makes the role of the civil service even more important to the future of Hong Kong. There may be difficult times ahead, but we have faced difficult times before. No matter what the problems, Hong Kong has shown an ability to adapt and bounce back unequalled anywhere. I have no doubt that we shall do so again.

It would be pointless to suggest that what has happened has not had a major effect on confidence in the future of Hong Kong. I know that you must be deeply concerned. But this makes it all the more necessary for us, as civil servants, to work towards ensuring a stable, and prosperous Hong Kong both up to and beyond 1997. One thing that has emerged from this present situation is a unity of purpose in Hong Kong. We cannot go back, we can only go forward, plan ahead and build for the future. In going forward our duty and commitment is to Hong Kong and its people.

I realise of course that in difficult times it is the civil service that is in the front line, that it is that civil service who may bear the brunt of the community's concerns, and that it is the civil service to which many people time for leadership, guidance and help. I have set that confidence in the future of Hong Kong has been seriously affected; what has not been affected is the confidence in the civil service; its sense of duty and dedication and its commitment to serve the people of Hong Kong.

Yours sincerely,

David Ford

Chief Secretary

中譯本

香港布政司署

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT

HONG KONG

各位同事：

　　在這個時刻，政府公務員亦與全港市民一樣，對於近日在北京所發生的流血事件，深深感到震驚和哀傷。相信各位也像本港大部分市民一樣，正密切注意中國國內局勢的發展。我們大家都希望促進中國現代化和開放的發展，在未來數年會有新的動力。

　　雖然香港人對中國最近發生的事件，感到憤怒，但卻極能保持自重和克制。公務員的表現，更是如此。各位在這個令人不安的時期，依然緊守崗位，全心全意地工作，實在值得讚揚。我這封信，就是要向各位致謝。各位不但繼續為市民提供一貫的優良服務，同事亦不忘與市民緊密團結在一起。各位一直為香港忠誠服務，我們對此深為感激。

　　最近幾個星期所發生的慘劇，使公務員在香港前途方面所擔當的角色更形重要。前路可能是困難重重，但我們以往也經歷過艱苦的時刻。無論是甚麼困難，香港都能夠順應時勢，迅速復原。這方面的表現，確是舉世無雙的。我深信我們可以順利地再次渡過難關。

　　倘若說最近發生的事件，並沒有重大影響港人對香港前途的信心，實在是沒有意思的。我知道各位一定對此深表關注。不過，對我們公務員來說，就更需要努力工作，確保香港在一九九七年前後，能夠保持穩定繁榮。現時的情況使香港全體市民有堅定一致的目標。我們不能後退，只能向前邁進，為將來制定計劃，進行建設。在向前邁進時，我們須盡忠職守，竭力為香港和全體市民服務。

　　我清楚了解到困難時刻來臨時，站在前線的就是公務員。你們首當其衝，要承擔市民的擔憂；而很多市民亦希望公務員會給他們提供領導、指引和幫助。我剛才說，港人對香港前途的信心受到嚴重影響；但他們對公務員的信心卻未有動搖。他們深信公務員仍會竭盡本分，盡心盡力為香港市民服務。

布政司　霍德

一九八九年六月十六日

Admit It, You’ll Eventually Be Surrounded By A Generation Who Haven’t Experienced Tian’anmen Massacre

Admit It, You’ll Eventually Be Surrounded By A Generation Who Haven’t Experienced Tian’anmen Massacre

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Lewis Loud
Original: https://sosreader.com/n/user/@paleistmac-Lewis/article/5afe7b26fd89780001549811 

The student unions of eight universities told the press that they won’t organize any Tian’anmen-related events. Many “yellow ribbons” were angry.

I don’t know what do undergraduates think about this. A few years ago, I started to urge people to boycott the rally held by HK Alliance and to sever ties with patriotism. But that doesn’t mean that I completely know what they are thinking about because I haven’t talked to any SU members. I am already not as young as they are. With loads of criticisms against the youth, old “yellow ribbons” see them as “revolters” as the youth does not follow the old’s “traditions and values”.

What kind of emotions do these old people expect post-1989 youth to have? If such a youth says he will commemorate the Massacre forever, that would be most hypocritical, isn’t it? “If I support democracy and freedom, I should bear in mind the Massacre for 10,000 years” - this is the political correctness passed on by “HKA-HKPTU-DP” (HK Alliance, Professional Teachers’ Union, Democratic Party). My generation doesn’t really give a damn, not to mention the latest generation. Admit it, things will change. You will eventually be surrounded by a generation who haven’t experienced the Massacre.

But if you think that the next generation will completely forget that, then that is showing your arrogance. This generation has experienced their own confrontations and has desires for dignity and liberty. Localists, independence supporters, self-determination supporters have arisen in an environment way more difficult compared to the era when the British ruled. These people have paid a higher cost than the older generation. Being charged, getting bankrupt, in exile, being imprisoned, being ridiculed, etc.

I don’t think that these “yellow ribbons” do care about democracy and freedom of Hong Kong. They care about the Massacre’s façade more than the succession of democratic awareness. They do not accept that the world will be taken over by a generation which has not experienced the Massacre. They do not stress the desire for freedom, which all human beings share, nor respect the differences between the young. They keep reiterating their limited participation - I watched the massacre live on TV, I went to Concert for Democracy in China, I went to protests…

Emotional experience was special, huge but uncopyable. If you haven’t experienced it, you haven’t. But this generation will remember 28 September 2014, Occupy Movement, Mong Kok unrest and names in these episodes. The older generation won’t care how to make this generation (which has a totally different emotional experience) feel what they felt back then. Do the older generation care about the democracy and freedom of Hong Kong? Do they think that they have done a good job in the past three decades? Do they believe that things will not be taken over by the younger generation?

They seem to care more about staying inside their echo chamber for the rest of their life, including murmuring “students are but cat’s paws“. These students can face Hong Kong upright. Democratic Party has fought for a retrogressive political reform and had private backroom deals with the Communists. Leung Yiu-chung, one of the standing members of the HK Alliance, surrendered the chairman seat in LegCo, leading to six lawmakers being disqualified. Every time, there were people missing when key bills in the Chamber are to be voted. Tightening of the Rules of Procedures, XRL, co-location, infrastructure appropriations were all passed. Don’t you care? “Standing one night on the stage in a year makes a person upright, having clear-cut protagonists and antagonists …” Doesn’t that sound TVB dramas?

The older generation cares the most such annual party. They do not care about how many battles were lost in the reality. As long as they “win” in the night in such virtual rally, they are satisfied. They will then point the finger at protesters as spies from the Party and making riots. Those who have decades of remaining life won’t bear these.

For those “yellow ribbons”, they probably can’t imagine why is this unbearable. With those mean comments, you might think nothing happened over the past few years or even decade. They have loose standards for the authority but strict to the weak. They might think that their own contribution is comparable to building temples and beneficial to the public.

In the past two or three years, students have bid China farewell, but still, see the Massacre as a “humanitarian disaster” and had a few forums, trying to localize the commemoration of the Massacre. Yet, people who are not going to Victoria Park are slammed. Those “yellow ribbons“ had loads of antagonistic articles and words against the students, who did not have an equal amount of article exposure and airtime. If this is an election, this is equal to “scolding at your supporters”. Those who scold so loudly have their dreams come true. The students don’t think it is necessary to organize such event. Things should be said have been said.

If we say forcing people to love their country is a tyranny, then HK Alliance forcing the latest generation to have “Massacre emotional experience” is equally “Chinese”. There is metal fatigue, and a long-term emotional blackmail also generates antibody in people’s mind.

The right mentality is simple: those who want to go can go, and those who don’t are not sinners. People can still collaborate on different matters after that night. “Yellow ribbons” can tolerate Alvin Yeung, who was absent for many key meetings in LegCo, and Leung Yiu-chung, who surrendered the chairmanship, yet they just can’t tolerate undergraduates who have different mindsets when it comes to identity and “Massacre emotional experience”.

“Undergraduates ought to cry for the Massacre” - this is just the imagination of one generation. No one will be on the stage forever, not me, not you and not that incident.

Declaration of the HKUSU on the Tian’anmen Massacre

Declaration of the Hong Kong University Students’ Union on the Tian’anmen Massacre
Patriotism only ends in hardship and panic, 

We repent to misdeeds to cling on to our lives

Translated and written by Hong Kong University Students' Union
Original: https://www.facebook.com/hkusupage/photos/a.512349045490265.1073741833.509449175780252/1080739061984591/?type=3 

(Content provided by HKUSU)

Twenty-seven years ago, China underwent a change in the midst of spring and summer, looking forward to the emergence of democracy and freedom. In contrary, the striking democratic movement ended only in suppression and bloodshed. Countless citizens and students deceased under the state apparatus. Those who were latterly reprised and put in jail or tortured were also hard to number. Starting the student movement in the name of patriotism, students would have never imagined their country to have been taken over by communist evil who harmed people for their own doing. Lies written in black and white can never disguise the bloody truth. Even though Hongkongers live in a slightly freer place, we, with conscience and justice, have never forgotten this history of 1989. Unfortunately, on the opposite shore of the river, the Chinese seem to have long been blinded by the dictators’ fine words and actions, drowning in the nouveau-riche Chinese dream. There is no one who combats the regime’s atrocity, except very few rights defence protesters. In retrospect twenty-seven years later, the Tian’anmen Massacre marked the last chance for the Chinese Communist to improve itself, which it had missed. After the Massacre, China bid her final goodbye to democracy. Human rights was ruined amid the heyday of the party authoritarian. While the authority expanded infinitely, corruption and collusion were out of limit. As the respectable culture was undermined, society reached a point of no return.

The Tian’anmen Massacre is not only a turning point for China, but also a watershed in Hongkongers building of sense of identity. On one hand, it destroys our fantasy towards China’s Reform and Opening Up, sparking the Hongkonger’s subjective consciousness; on the other, it, paradoxically, muddles up the destiny of Hongkongers and Chinese, knocking the subjective consciousness back down. Over the years, the Victoria Park vigil and patriotism have been chained up to be an inseparable pair of twins. Today, revisiting the historical meaning of the Massacre is to tell everyone that it is more important to recognise the pursuit for freedom and democracy, than the absurdity in patriotism. As we debate over freedom and democracy, they must lead us to a new subjectivity, which is exactly the self-determination that youngsters are now chanting for. As we have realised the truth of China being nothing but a party state, ‘patriotism’ and pursuit of democracy and freedom actually contradict one another fundamentally. ‘Building a democratic China’ shall thus not be included in Hong Kong political agenda. Commemoration based on patriotism shall also be put to an end. Similar to anywhere in the world, Chinese democracy should be fought for by no other but their own people. Hongkongers have no reason to take up such forced duty, let alone ‘building a democratic China’ from afar at such a cost in order to protect ourselves. Denial of the responsibility of ‘Hongkongers building a democratic China’ never means an end to interaction between civil societies of the two nations. Just like the interaction between citizens of Hong Kong and Taiwan, of course Hong Kong can share our experience with Chinese suppressed by the Communist. But the aim of such action must not be based on a non-existent ‘duty’.

The fourth of June should never be only about wailing and whining amid candlelight once every year. While some political parties and politicians keep on proclaiming their ideal to end the one-party dictatorship, they are yet bounded by the ‘Patriotic incantation of Golden Hoop’ day in, day out. They fear and worship the Communist regime. They do whatever it takes to meet officials from Peking, never even challenging a bit of the Communist legitimacy on our sovereignty. Hong Kong is always bothered by only one political problem. It is the cost that we can take. In face of the first Future of Hong Kong discussion, most Hongkongers and even politicians had failed to learn the lesson from the Massacre, lacking the imagination towards Hong Kong subjectivity, let alone the courage to take charge of our homeland. Together with the sugar-coated poison of ‘Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, High degree of autonomy’, Hong Kong democratisation was only delayed. Unfortunately, there is never ‘what if’ in history, but only lessons. We may not be able to alter our past, but we still have a say in our future. We shall never make the same mistake twice.

On every 4th June since today, while mourning the deceased in the Massacre from afar, we pay our silent tribute to Hong Kong, a place which has long been betrayed, pledging our strong will for self-determination towards the future after 2047. Some may argue that the Chinese Imperialism shall only make Chinese factors ubiquitous and Hong Kong can never remain uninfluenced at this small piece of land. The new generation upholding Hongkongers’ self-determination is never an attempt to deceive, but to do something that is known to be unlikely to succeed. As a result of the Communist encroachment, revolt in self-determination and independence movement in Hong Kong begin. We are more than well-informed of the realistic considerations and limitation than anyone who only douses us with cold water. Yet, it is more than clear that: for democracy, we must stand and fight, but never kneel and beg. Democracy is always a process of self-empowerment and self-realisation. We therefore must turn our sense of identity into our weapon in protests. We must struggle against the regime and seek for the most political rights for ourselves, and our next generation.

Only a few years may have gone by, but the localist ideology which was once a farce in most people’s mind has already entered the major political agenda. Indeed no one can be sure that such localist ideology can usher Hongkongers into salvation. But at this fork of our age, one way is towards the deep blue sea, and the other is towards the bloody red hell. For this we make a clear decision: we may navigate to the uncharted, but we never mix with the evils. In the meantime, we must shout at the dictators that they must pay the cost if they wish for our compliance. Hong Kong, we must protect it with our lives. 

2016 Joint Institution Declaration for the Tian’anmen Massacre

2016 Joint Institution Declaration for the Tian’anmen Massacre

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by CUHK SU, CHI SU, HKSUT SU, BUHK SU, HKSYU SU, OUHK SU, HSMC SU, HKAPA SU, THEi SU, CityU SU Temporary Administrative Committee, CIHE & CBCC SU
Original: http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1042566 

The Beijing student movement in 1989 lasted for 51 days and nights, in pursuit of openness, democracy and freedom. It started from 15 April, the night of commemorating Hu Yaobang, and ended with the bloodshed at Tian’anmen Square. The carnage by PLA has shown the ferocious side of the CCP regime, and has caused a perpetual scar on the course of Chinese history.

27 years have passed. On 4 June, Chinese people around the world will commemorate this tragedy. In Hong Kong, the candlelight in Victoria Park has been ignited year after year. But at this key moment when we face “the 2nd negotiation for Hong Kong's future”, we need more reflection. The tertiary education sector has unanimously decided not to attend the vigil in Victoria Park, as the organizer, HK Alliance, has a rigid form of assembly, promoted the identity as Chinese and the goal of “building a democratic China”. However, not attending the Victoria Park vigil does not mean the tertiary education sector has neglected the Tian’anmen Massacre. 11 tertiary institutions thus organize this forum to make things clear – that is to look at the impact and significance of the Massacre towards Hongkongers from a rational and local perspective.

On 28 September 2014, tear gas was released on Harcourt Road, Admiralty. Black banners with “Disperse with Fire” were upheld by the police. The impact of the Massacre shadowed Hong Kong again. The fear was eventually a false alarm, but lots of people compared two incidents. The rise of localism trend after the Umbrella Revolution has resulted in some voices, saying that Hongkongers should sever ties with the Massacre. For years, the Massacre hovered Hong Kong: on one hand, it has formed the ideology and form of the democratic confrontation in Hong Kong; on the other hand, this is the fear of confrontation deep inside the minds of Hongkongers. Therefore, we cannot neglect the Massacre, but rather, we should know more about it. What is the relations between Hongkongers and “building a democratic China”? What is the shortcoming of traditional social movement in Hong Kong? Why did the tragedy in Tian’anmen not occurring in Hong Kong? We must face squarely to the Massacre from a local perspective.

Firstly, the dream of “building a democratic China” is as hard as a steel. The CCP is a tyrant who have absolute craze for the absolute authority. The CCP will annihilate all opposition powers at all costs, regardless of all sorts of criticisms, not to mention a carnage. Facing this ferocious regime, all Chinese have shown their staunch support to those martyrs and opposition powers, but there are fewer and fewer feedback. Generations of Hongkongers yearn for China, but the country has degraded to what it is now. The CCP regime has not changed its ferocity, yet the Chinese people has degenerated a lot. Look at what China has become now – the dream of “building a democratic China” cannot be achieved even with the aid of Hongkongers.

Secondly, CCP regime is definitely untrustworthy. Before 1989, the CCP said they will reform and open up; before the Massacre, Li Peng has a meeting with the student leaders. The twilight of a democratic China has ended in a dark night with bloodshed and carnage. Since then, we know that, promise is but a way to hide CCP’s ulterior motives on a negotiation table. We must remember that the CCP is not a modern democratic regime, with benefits and themselves in their minds and souls. No matter what kind of future Hong Kong will be after, Hongkongers should never trust a word from the CCP, not to mention any sorts of “collaboration” with the CCP. That is but silly.

The enlightenment of the Massacre is not confined to these two points. Therefore we organize this forum this year to look back on the Massacer’s significance, and look forward to Hong Kong’s future. We hope Hongkongers can really learn a lesson from history, look at our predicament today and prepare for the confrontation in the future. THE TYRANNY WILL DIE, GOD BLESS HONG KONG. 

End of "Overseas Chinese Patriotism" Marks Beginning of HK's Nation Awareness

End of "Overseas Chinese Patriotism" Marks Beginning of Hong Kong's Nation Awareness
The Epochal Significance of "Putting a Stop On Commemorating Tian'anmen Massacre"

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Tony Chui
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2016/05/31/31754/ 

A newspaper headline on Hongkongers supporting students in Beijing, not to mention CY Leung's support at that time.

Since 2013, people might oppose the vigil in Victoria Park held by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China (the Alliance), but people do not reject commemorating the Tian'anmen Massacre itself. Many other commemoration activities of the Massacre turned out. However, this year, there are people (who are not pro-Beijing) to propose not to commemorate the Massacre in the future. Recently, Althea Suen, the president of the HKUSU, said "I think that within one or two years, commemorating the Massacre should no longer be on the agenda of the tertiary education sector, and a period should be put there." She added that "Commemoration of the Massacre based on the 'compatriot' identity should be ended. " At the same time, Samuel Lai, Acting Chairperson at Current Affairs Committee, HKUSU Council, said, "We should put an end to the commemoration of the Massacre based on patriotism".

The "wind" that blows off the Massacre commemoration candles might not be Beijing, be it vindication or further suppression, but Hong Kong's nation awareness, or more commonly known as "localism" . In fact, in 2013, regarding whether to attend the vigil in Victoria Park, columnist Joseph Lian already said, "The year Hong Kong does not condemn the Massacre in Victoria Park, the year Hong Kong independence is full-fledged to made its existence among us [ref John 1:14]".

Where Does the Tradition of Massacre Commemoration Come From?

Before asking whether Hongkongers should continue to commemorate the Massacre, we should first ask: why are there so many people commemorating the Massacre every year? Why the number of attendants is far less in commemoration vigils in Taiwan or Macau?

Some commentators said the commemoration of the Massacre in Hong Kong is not only out of patriotism, but also out of the pursuit after democracy, freedom and human rights, as well as the persistence to justice. This is untenable: there are so many tragedies in the world, and no society will commemorate all. Choosing which tragedy to commemorate depends on whether such tragedies are significant to that society. Therefore, human rights or justice cannot be the only force for the community to commemorate an incident for such a long time so regularly, instead, specific identity and community ties can.

Why would Hongkongers supported the Beijing students' protest in 1989? Why were Hongkongers having strong reactions to the Massacre? Why were there so many large scale of commemoration vigil every year? I would like to cite an analysis written by Leung Man-tao back in 2005:

"During April to June 1989, the unprecedented passion of the Hong Kong society is related to the identity as Chinese. Songs prevalent at that time include "Be a Brave Chinese", "I am Chinese", "Descendants of Dragon" and so on [...] After two decades of growth and separation to the Mainland's political and social environment, Hong Kong and its people have a chance to know more about its motherland and to "re-identify" themselves as Chinese. Many Hongkongers might not know exactly what the Beijing students demand, but they will spend lots of time to listen to the radio and watch the TV, to discuss the trend of the movement — the way to connect China and themselves, who were in a British colony. Therefore, compared to the 1 July protest, the 1989 protest is actually an unprecedented patriotic movement.

Leung also pointed out the support of Beijing students from Hongkongers were not only because of "the patriotic mentality of overseas Chinese", but also because Hongkongers hoped that the success of China's democratic movement can ensure the freedom and autonomy of Hong Kong, and preventing Hong Kong from the "death of Hong Kong" by 1997.

"Lots of commentators have pointed out that the [then] passion of Hongkongers was built on the envisage of the future. Many Hongkongers believed that if China has started a political reform towards democracy before 1997, then the handover in 1997 would not be that fearful [...] Democracy and patriotism have since entwined with each other, thus becoming the largest momentum of the Alliance, and the political capital and background of pan-democrats, including the Democratic Party."

The ending was universally known - the Tian'anmen Massacre. Rich Hongkongers applied for emigration; poor ones demanded to accelerate the progress of Hong Kong's democracy, and hoped for an unchanged situation after 1997 with a democratic system. But at that point, many Hongkongers still see themselves as Chinese. After the 1991 Eastern China flood, Hongkongers donated HK$700 million;  in 1992 Barcelona Olympics, many Hongkongers supported Team China; in 1996, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands conflicts have caused many people to join protests organised by the Action Committee for Defending the Diaoyu Islands (ACDDI, and the movement is known as "Baodiao" movement), and make donations for them to go to the Islands. After David Chan Yuk-cheung, a prominent Baodiao activist who drowned around the seas of Diaoyu Islands, Democratic Party and DAB had an unprecedented joint candlelight vigil in the Victoria Park to commemorate this "Baodiao hero". Supporting the Beijing students' movements and commemorating the Massacre are ordinary examples of the "patriotic overseas Chinese mentality" by Hongkongers at that time — to be safe patriots outside China.

The Massacre Enlightens Hongkongers Politically, But Has Become Balls and Chains?

It is well known that the Massacre is the incident that enlightens many Hongkongers politically. Many Hongkongers participating in democratic movements started to care about the politics of Hong Kong and China, and started various confrontations. League of Social Democrats and ACDDI member Bull Tsang Kin-shing is one example.

When compared to recent "localist" movements, these democratic movements do not deny "Hong Kong is part of China" and "Hongkongers are Chinese", and based on these two principles, the activists supported democracy, human rights and autonomy for Hong Kong. The protest against brainwashing National Education in 2012 did not deny such principles (even they were led by new generation), and largely supported "loving China, but not loving the Party" — or "Hong Kong style patriotism". For the deliberation of the "Occupy Central with Love and Peace" and "I want universal suffrage" movement during 2013 to 27 September 2014, the main principle is not to challenge "Hong Kong is part of China". This explains why there were many youngsters who were not yet born during the Massacre went to Victoria Park Vigil during 2011-2014, and sung patriotic songs. This is because it was a stance against HKSARG and CCP. However, these democratic movements declined after the tearing gas shot on 28 September 2014.

Rumours of "cops have fired" or "PLA has came out of the barracks"" spreaded on the Internet on 28 September. Many people remembered the Massacre. In order to avoid the same tragedy in Hong Kong, they asked protesters to leave as soon as possible. On 1 October, students have formed a chain from letting other protesters barging the PRC national day flag-raising ceremony in Golden Bauhinia Square. It was said that the reason is not to give excuses for Beijing to launch a carnage. Such thoughts and moves are definitely related to the Massacre. Thus, we can say the memory of the Massacre has deterred some protesters from escalating their actions.

Whether the memory of the Massacre is a force or a hindrance to the post-Umbrella confrontation is a food for thought for you.

HK Alliance + Pan-dems = Kuomintang?; "Construct a Democratic China"="Three Principles of the People Unites China"?

The trend of Hong Kong independence has arised. Some pro-Beijing politicians said pan-democratic parties can be the "loyal opposition camp" that supports One Country, Two Systems. Then it is unavoidable to compare the development of Taiwan independence movement and Hong Kong in recent years.

If one looks at the political propaganda of KMT in the early 1980s, one can easily find out KMT often condemned Taiwan independence groups having close connections with CCP. After KMT has moved to Taiwan, they knew it was impossible to "counter-attack mainland China". After Chiang Kai-shek passed away, Chiang Ching-kuo even used "Three Principles of the People Unites China" to replace the slogan of "counter-attack mainland China". Li Teng-hui became the president in 1990s, and thus some old Kuomingtang members withdrew from KMT and formed New Party, in pursuit of ultimate unification. This move was welcomed by Beijing. In 2000, when Democratic Progressive Party started ruling Taiwan for the first time, KMT and CCP have become closer as they are against Taiwan independence. If Beijing sees the archenemy in Hong Kong as the "Hong Kong separatists", then it is important to look at whether CCP treats pan-dems in the way that CCP treats KMT as the allies of anti-secession, or Tongzhan subjects.

Chip Tsao and Ivan Choy have pointed out that what Beijing fears most is not lots of participants in the Victoria Park vigil, but rather, no participants at all. If so, commemorating the Massacre in Hong Kong may cause Beijing to be "unhappy" on the surface, but deep inside, CCP welcomes such commemoration because this is what Christopher Chung said, "being local without separation". In 1958, CCP attacked Quemoy and Matsu, the two islands held by KMT which are close to mainland China. On the surface, CCP attacked with strong weapons, and the US even asked Chiang to give up these two islands, but Chiang did not do so. CCP did not want KMT to leave, because if they did, the ties between Taiwan and mainland China will be completely severed, and the situation of Two Chinas will be formed. This is what Mao and Chiang opposed, but the US supported (Taylor, 2009). Commemoration of the Massacre might be the main emotional tie between mainland China and Hong Kong, and be treated as a tool to suppress separatism. Few years ago KMT veterans went to mainland China, and said "KMT army or PLA are all Chinese army!" By the same token, Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China and Communist Party of China also contain the word China.

Conclusion: Re-consider About the HK-China Relationship, and One Would Doubt the Necessity to Commemorate the Massacre

After the handover in 1997, Hongkongers are no longer "overseas Chinese" under the British rule, but Chinese nationals under the (though indirect) rule of PRC. In face of Beijing's rule with HK-China integration, the difference between Hong Kong and China gradually diminishes. Hong Kong is no longer a British overseas territory with political stability with nice livelihood. Members of public having confrontation with the police force on the street is no longer something afar like the Tian'anmen Massacre, but rather places that one can easily access to. It is not only normal but also mature and responsible for Hongkongers, especially younger ones, to re-consider the Hong Kong-China relationship. Other Hongkongers are irrational and irresponsible to backfire them without rhyme or reason — especially those Hongkongers who can emigrate whenever they want and be a "patriotic Chinese"in the West.

Reference:

Jay Taylor (2009): The Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-shek and the Struggle for Modern China / End of IV 2 - Managing the Protector

Have a Look at Lee Bo's Case -- CY Leung's Statement

Have a Look at Lee Bo's Case -- CY Leung's Statement

Translated by Karen L., written by Post-90s Bullshit
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2016/01/07/26327/

(Source: aTV News; CY Leung responding to Lee Bo's incident)

One by one, the employees and shareholders of Causeway Bay Books have gone missing. This includes Lee Bo who disappeared into thin air, for which the international world has shown their concern. The reason being that the books aim at the segment which is interested in dark secrets in China. It is suspected that the whole matter is CCP’s demonstration to violate “One Country, Two Systems” and interference against Hong Kong’s freedom of press.

Four days after Lee Bo went missing, CY Leung said that he will keep a close eye on the events, and indicated that law enforcement in Hong Kong can only be practiced by local officials, but not by officials from mainland China, otherwise it will be the violation of “One Country, Two Systems”.

Yes, CY Leung intended to emphasize that the “One Country, Two Systems” still stands, but nevertheless, from the experiences, such a statement symbolizes an alarm which we should be worried. It always turns out to be the opposite of what he says.

So far, it’s hardly to find examples to disprove this observation. Before the Handover, CY Leung once said that he thinks it’s wrong to send one’s children abroad for studies; but it is known to everyone that all three of his children have studied in England. He said that he himself is not a political material and that he will not run for the CE, but by the same token, he has become the CE now. What is more, in 1989, he expressed his discontent of the violent clearance against students at the Tiananmen Square. And you know the rest of the story.

Following the pattern, the more opposite you view of CY Leung’s “reassuring” statement, the closer it is to the truth. In the case of Lee Bo, CY Leung claimed that officials from mainland China have no authority to execute the law; perhaps, they have already been in Hong Kong lurking somewhere. It’s simply us being kept in the dark. As to whether CCP breaches “One Country, Two Systems”, I believe you've had the answer.

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.

How Raymond Wong sees Tian'anmen Massacre Vigil in HK (2013)

How Raymond Wong sees Tian'anmen Massacre Vigil in HK

Translated by LegCo Translation and Interpretation Dept, spoken by Raymong Wong Yuk-man
Original: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/counmtg/hansard/cm0529-translate-e.pdf 

(29 May 2013)

 Deputy President, commemoration of the 4 June incident has taken root on our land. 

 The motion on the 4 June incident is an annual expression of political stance. The pan-democrats perform the ritual every year, while the royalists dodge it year after year. It has already become a routine gesture and model response. However, such division has also led to a lazy mindset. Having considered themselves as the embodiment of justice for a long period, the pan-democrats have always marginalized internal disagreements. As the oppression of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the masses in Hong Kong becomes increasingly severe and internal disagreements become stronger, they have no idea how to respond except to demonize them. 

 The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance) has almost monopolized the whole commemoration of the 4 June incident held in Hong Kong. The formulaic procedure of its vigil and the centralization of power inside the Alliance have already drawn criticisms from a lot of participants. Ten years ago, when I wished to go onto the stage in the vigil to appeal to the public to take to the streets to "topple TUNG" and oppose the introduction of legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law, I had to beg sorely the seniors in the Alliance led by SZETO Wah and bargain with them repeatedly in order to get their "gracious approval". 

 Local consciousness has emerged since last year, and the Alliance drew up the puzzling slogan of "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit" which had evoked a tide of adverse comments. Then CHIN Wan posted an article on Facebook which says, "Commemoration of the 4 June incident must go into the community. The Alliance must draw a clear line between itself and the democratic camp. Otherwise, Hong Kong people should not participate in the vigil on 4 June". A stone tossed into the water has raised a thousand ripples. However, criticisms and responses have often been degenerated to giving vent to sentiments, and the obsolete moral judgment still applies, that is, "attendance in the candlelight vigil is a distinction between humans and beasts". 

 Today, we need to examine deeply into the issues of the commemoration of the 4 June incident. Since the airwaves era, I have strongly advocated abandoning the use of the word "vindication". Firstly, "vindication" implies recognition of the CCP's legal ruling status. Secondly, people with some knowledge of the CCP's history will understand that "vindication" and "reform of the political system" are not necessarily related. In 1978, DENG Xiaoping took advantage of the people's wish to vindicate the 5 April Tiananmen Incident to defeat the "yes-men", but after he had seized power, he turned his back and suppressed the Xidan Democracy Wall. There is the chance that such a historical event will recur in the future. 

 As for the new slogan of "Love the country, love the people; Hong Kong spirit", after the 1989 pro-democracy movement, there was a similar slogan in Hong Kong ― "If China has no democracy, Hong Kong will have no future" ― and after the 4 June incident, it became a defeatist statement which said, "If China has no democracy, Hong Kong will have no democracy either". During the pro-democracy movement, Hong Kong people had a rather complicated mental state …… right now we are discussing the motion on the vindication of the 4 June incident. The Honourable colleagues in the pan-democratic camp should find it very serious, but I do not know what Dr Helena WONG is laughing at. What are you laughing at? Is it very funny? We are discussing the vindication of the 4 June incident here. What are you laughing at? 

(...)

 Let me borrow HUNG Ho-fung's words on Facebook: "4 June 1989 was an important landmark in the establishment of Hong Kong people's subject identity, though it concurrently had the contradictory effects of stimulating Hong Kong's subject consciousness (that means disillusion with the "liberal CCP") and suppressing such subject consciousness (that means tying up democratization in Hong Kong with democratization on the Mainland)." On the other hand, for many Hong Kong people, that was the point of awakening their sense of identity as "Chinese people". 

 However, after the 4 June tragedy, it became an endless misery of "unrequited love". Looking back 24 years later, the 4 June tragedy marked the CCP's failure to grasp the last golden opportunity to mend its way. The so-called "reform within the CCP system" is just a fantasy. In addition, since DENG Xiaoping's inspection in the south in 1992, the whole country only has eyes on money. Corruption is entirely out of control, and the quality of the masses on the Mainland is as low as it can get. Judging from this, even the "civilized China" is gradually dying out in the north of the Shenzhen River. The CCP continues to occupy China by foul means. Competing with a political regime which has monopolized "love for the country" by showing "we love the country more", and cherishing unrequited love for a country which does not deserve our love, will be futile. 

 Every year I will attend the candlelight vigil for only two reasons: first, all beings grieve for their fellows' misfortunes; second, I wish to denounce the "butcher" regime through attending the vigil, in the hope that Hong Kong people will not forget the definite relationship between the 4 June tragedy and the "butcher" regime. 

 Now some people have queried whether the number of people attending the candlelight vigil would actually scare the Community Party, I think they have really set the focus wrong. If the Alliance is willing to make the memorial activities completely local and leave out the theme about love for the country, the Community Party will be more scared. However, requesting them to mend their way, I am afraid, is like expecting the Democratic Party to apologize to the public for betraying the voters three years ago, on which no high hopes can be placed. I hope that people who decide to boycott the candlelight vigil of the Alliance can organize activities on their own to commemorate the 4 June incident with local perspectives. They should not boycott the so-called "memorial activities". 

 The civic society in Hong Kong is a forgotten "casualty". The 1989 pro-democracy movement had awakened the idealistic sentiment of many Hong Kong people, but the following suppression had shattered their ideals and made most Hong Kong people more cynical. Owing to the time constraint, I cannot finish delivering this speech. 

 The 4 June tragedy is a humanitarian disaster. By the standard of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, it is a "crime against humanity". From this angle, we demand the Communist Party to take responsibility. 

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.