Arnold Fang: For HKers who have shut themselves out of the real HK quite some time

For HKers who have shut themselves out of the real HK quite some time

Translated by Karen L., Written by Arnold Fang
Original: https://www.facebook.com/notes/10152597967330676/ 

Read this or not?

Dear readers, 

If you are capable of recognising "離地" (Translator's note: lei4 dei6, "ex-situ" in English, is a term originally describing things that are off the ground. But now it is used to describe that although people are living in HK, they do not know much about the reality of HK, or as the title suggests, they chose to "shut themselves out of the real HK") or know yourself well enough excluding in this category, you are not mainly targeted for this article. Yet, it would be nice if you could share this article to anyone who might need to construct understanding of this concept and the related issues. 

For the target audience of this article, you may either have been living a relatively comfortable life in an "ex-situ" manner or centring your daily activities stably in Hong Kong while shutting yourselves away morally from this city - Regardless of its changes, the political system remains irrelevant of your interest as long as it doesn't get in your way directly.

The following is my letter to Hong Kong. You will be informed that the real Hong Kong is distinctly far from what you've thought you know. And what messages you've been receiving may solely reflect opinions of a few individuals or part of the issue of this community. This article is also written to bring you a piece of advice. 

Mainstream media's interpretation of "defiance" 

In your minds, Hong Kong may go into a messy track these days. Last week, the media covered the story in which protesters stormed the LegCo building. For the "whys", your unfavorable perception on these aggressive scenes might overrule your objectivity to penetrate the dense fog before judgement. Demonstrators are condemned by your kind of their radical behaviours requesting for government's response. 

I'd been there in person. The extensive coverage of "radical" actions happened only for 2-3 minutes in real world, carried out by a few individuals among all protesters. What didn't capture media was the rest of the protesters, who sat peacefully within the protest zone for the whole time. Not even slightly touched the breach of law, these protesters were also dragged away by the police force. Some even said that they were removed from the area and were treated violently afterwards. How many of these "side stories" have been seen in the public eye?

What does "defiance" stand for and what doesn't? The definition in our heads, mostly forms after media's screening. For what you and I know are inevitably insufficient if we're not involved physically. It may need to take more than time to know one's sense of mission and it may be hard to imagine that every single step we've made started from the moment we walk out of our doorsteps is a step of defiance. Why, exactly why do we have to choose living in such a miserable way?

What if we don’t fight against the existing unjustified situation?

The chaos happened in last week derives from the system's injustice. The council is here to make decisions important enough to affect the whole city, however, dominance position shared by pro-Beijing camp and business sector are created in the design of the current election system. These supporting voices added with Mainland China's actual economic and power penetration, is expected to overwhelm local's needs and wants. The locals' thoughts are not going to be heard. 

Recently, increasing members of pro-Beijing camp in both LegCo and District Board are recorded. Yet it's an extreme case for the pan-democracy camp. Elements causing the situation can be analysed as full support given to pan-Beijing camp and gradual split evolved from political divergence within pan-democracy camp through years of struggles. For the latter element, I'll describe it as 17 years of exhaustion.

Right now, we're discussing certain political reform for the future including selecting Chief Executive in 2017 and electing LegCo counsellors through full democracy in 2020. These two, can be the twist of the injustice deeply rooted in our system. But while the government advocates their slogan "Let's Talk and Achieve Universal Suffrage", they have been acting the other round - shutting many suggested schemes out of the discussion. The government has insisted that only Chief Executive candidates be nominated by a "nominating committee" is an appropriate manner complying with Basic Law.

But here’s the problem: How will this "nominating committee" be constructed? What kind of committees will they bring us, the ones supported by the citizens or those accepted by the central government only?

Everything is in the details which need further discussions. Somehow the government set "a definitive tone" to kill the other possibilities even before the time to reach conclusion. 

Whether the political reform will bring us an election system with full democracy or a controlled pseudo-democratic system? After all, it depends on ourselves. If we simply give it up, all we'll have is a system designed according to the authority's will. Isn't it unfair to citizens?

Put your knowledge and wisdom in a right position: fight for it and spread this message widely

Some of you may think you have no obligation to safeguard and improve Hong Kong political system as you no longer live here. But for your family and friends who still set their lives in Hong Kong and for your empathy to bring people happiness through a rather complete political system, you should do something.

And some of you may have a rather stable life in Hong Kong or you may not need this government to do anything for you. But this, is not an issue in personal font, but for everybody in the city. And signs are there that the deep-rooted structural imbalance is becoming harder to solve than ever. If you’re tired to hearing any defiance voices again, you’ll have the obligation with you to make sure the justice and fairness are to be practiced in the council and that people have their representatives to speak up for them. Only in this way will the policy discussion afterwards be underwent in a civilised way. 

In the following week, Hong Kong citizens can express their views on the yet-to-come political system through online referendum. Even the options over there are still limited in this stage, this is a chance for us to emphasis the importance of possessing an election system which lives up to international standards.

For Hongkongers located in Hong Kong, please take some time (a 2-minute video) to look at your options, and vote within 20-29 June.

For those who presently located in other places, who isn't included as voters, please share the message of the importance of an efficient election system to your family and friends and encourage them to vote. 

For whom who have helped or voted after reading this article, you all owe a debt of gratitude of us. 

Man Fungtat: Hong Kong in the Year 1984 vs Czechoslovakia in the Year 1938

Hong Kong in the Year 1984 vs Czechoslovakia in the Year 1938

Translated and written by Man Fungtat (萬逢達/協紀辨方)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-15-2014/16355 

Ming Pao quoted a source from the Chinese Foreign Ministry that China intends to sign an Outcome Document in the 30th  anniversary of the Joint Declaration, during Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to the United Kingdom. Whether Li can make the trip is yet to be confirmed. The Times of London reported that “the trip would be in jeopardy unless royal meeting was on the agenda”. So it depends on the decision of the Queen whether to host a meeting with this boorish guest. But no matter what the result is, a Hong Konger with a good mind should not expect too much from the United Kingdom on her commitment towards the Hongkongers against the lucrative Chinese market. Anyway, it won’t make much difference whether the United Kingdom signs the Outcome Document or not. The funeral has been arranged. The coffin is here, the priest is ready, the bouquets are there, the candles are lighted. You don’t need the nail in the coffin to get convinced that the guy is dead.

The nails, however, do make a difference to some Hongkongers. You can’t expect too much for the intelligence of Hongkongers in politics. They are exactly the guys who are the last to get convinced only when they see the coffin gets nailed. Many Hongkongers only came to get alarmed when the State Council of PRC announced the White Paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (the White Paper). They just couldn’t imagine PRC dared to violate the Joint Declaration, an international treaty. Oh, please don’t blame on those Hongkongers, they grew up with soap operas produced by Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB). Every Hong Konger grew up with soap operas, so don’t tell me you are more intelligent than others.

As many who are interested in politics are those guys getting alarmed when the coffin gets nailed, you come to understand why many Hongkongers are still having unrealistic wishes on the United Kingdom. Many do imagine someday the British will return and rule over Hong Kong again. Okay, maybe you were still in your mother’s womb when the Joint Declaration was signed, maybe you think that the Democrats who advocated unification with China at that time should take full responsibility, fine. So please explain the following:

1. The Six monthly Reports on Hong Kong published since the handover are just like copy and paste printouts, every report just says the "One Country, Two Systems" works well, ignoring the fact that Hong Kong’s autonomy is under jeopardy;
2. The mainstream media in the West, amongst which BBC can best represent the United Kingdom, gave numerous biased reports favouring the mainland Chinese against Hongkongers. (You can read more details from this page) When the Hongkongers took photos on misbehaviour of the Chinese tourists, the Hongkongers were criticised as "fascists" and "discrimination". In Hong Kong-China conflicts, the media in the West did not give a hand to Hongkongers, but blamed on the Hongkongers instead;
3. The PRC stated clearly in the White Paper that the PRC government had “overall jurisdiction” over Hong Kong. This was a breach of the Joint Declaration, which promised “One Country, Two Systems” for Hong Kong. As a signatory of the Declaration, the United Kingdom first remained silent, then paid the lip service by releasing a press release under the pressure of Hong Kong netizens.

From the above clues, we can see clearly that Hong Kong in 1984 was in the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

In the year 1938, the generous British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew to Munich to sign a treaty with Hitler, pressing Czechoslovakia to cede Sudetenland to Germany, with the absence of the representative of Czechoslovakia, hoping that could satisfy the appetite of Hitler. What came next was the full annexation of Czechoslovakia, and the invasion of Poland in the next year, leading to the outbreak of the World War II. Chamberlain’s appeasement was a total failure.

The way that the United Kingdom dealt with China was just like how she dealt with Hitler. In a word: appeasement. At the time of Sino-British negotiations, there were many Hongkongers hoping to have their voices heard, but there was never a representative of Hongkongers on the negotiation table. The PRC and Hitler shared the same vices of reneging on the treaties signed; they treated international treaties as tools for territorial gains; they had serious victims complex; and hostile towards international order and respect on contracts.

The Great Britain gave a much more mighty impression than she is. During the Second Opium War, the Qing Emperor and his officials hoped they could fend off the Anglo-French envoys en route to Peking by playing tricks. The British responded by blowing up the forts and sending troops inland into Peking. The Summer Palaces were burnt down. That was the way how the British used to deal with Chinese. The comments of the Chinese by the Europeans at that time: ignorant but wiseacre, lack of the sense of honour, which are still applicable to the Chinese today. In contrast, the way that the British handled the “barbarians” degenerates with her influence on global affairs.

So for the Hongkongers, you can rely on nobody but yourselves. You are the only saviour of your homeland. No others owe you such responsibility. Those who help themselves get the help from the God; those who help themselves get the help from the fellows. If the Hongkongers don’t want to be sold like pigs, do you duty and take up your responsibility. You will get the help from the God and your fellows.

The only positive effect of the signature of the British on the Outcome Document is to wake up the dream for those who imagine that the British will return. It’s time to wake up from your dream and prepare for the fight.

[P. S. Upon completing this article, it was reported by Times of London that Li Keqiang will be received by the Queen. So what the glorious Kingdom looks like today.]

Wing: Opportunists: "Awesome Taiwan moves, awful Hongkong dudes"

Opportunists: "Awesome Taiwan moves, awful Hongkong dudes"

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Title by Mayi Mason, Edited by Vivian L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-17-2014/16413 

(Photo: Sherman Wong @ VJMedia)

Young faces holding sunflowers, uncles and aunts giving out resources and materials to backup demonstrators, banners with charismatic slogans hanging up in the air. The protest campaign over a controversial China trade deal (CSSTA) that developed into an “Occupy Legislature” movement was also called "The Sunflower Movement", where sunflower symbolises passion and vitality. Quite a number of Hong Kong politicians and famous radio hosts travelled to Taipei to showed their support. We know because they posted selfies on Facebook. Our ‘leaders’ seemed to think Taiwanese student movement symbolised youth and romance, their protests must be peaceful and rational.

Behind each and every sunflower, there are something that these opportunists dare not say. Things like, students broke the glass door, removed and trampled the plaque of the Legislative Yuan right after they entered the government building. Is such criminal vandalism considered non-violent, "peaceful” or “rational"?

On 13 June, Hongkongers used bamboo sticks to pry open the door in our LegCo. These opportunists shook their heads and cried, "These are violence. They will scare off the public." Yet, when Taiwanese protesters broke down doors, they immediately rushed over there to "gain experience". They did not seem a bit "scared off" by the Taiwanese "thugs". Now people say they have double standards, they say, Taiwanese protesters did not wear masks to cover their faces. But when you google “Sunflower Students’ Protest” (or 太陽花學運), an image search will bring you photos of demonstrators wearing masks right on the first page.

If you show them these photo, they will say the type of masks are different; Legislative Yuan and LegCo are different; or Taiwan police and HK police forces are different.... You can name as many differences as you wish, but why are you determining an action being violent by the criterion of showing the faces or not? According to such logic, a robbery carried out with masks is a robbery, but it is not if the robber wears no masks? It is up to those opportunists to decide upon whether they are violent or not.

The delineation between violent and non-violent confrontation is not clearly set out, and will not be set out by these bounders. Why? Because if they do not set it out clearly, they can comment whatever they want. According to her, HK protesters are violent, HKers are then thugs; and even Taiwan protesters broke the door, they are peaceful and rational. Taiwan and HK protesters both stormed the legislature, but opportunists give Taiwan protesters a leg up, but a big slap in the face for HKers.

Besides radio hosts, some politicians, activists, columnists love to stand on "moral high grounds" to be back-seat drivers when Hongkongers are paying real efforts to fight against the government, and point their fingers at those "violent protesters", saying that confrontation should be "nice, peaceful and rational".

[Translator's opinion: Communist tyrant Mao once said, "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."]

Compared to ignorant housewives who often said "these radical people only know how to bark around", these "nicer people" are actually more sinful. They know the government is suppressing the public with their own authority, yet they still make use of their influence to make people think those who protest are "thugs". Such behaviour is no different to kicking the demonstrators when they are down.

To those "nice people" out there, please make it clear who you should be helping. Taiwanese people do not need you to take selfies there, and stop kicking others when they are down. SAR government will play its role in "condemning" such "thugs", they do not need you to speak for them either.

Wave Shum: What's the point of accepting defeat without a fight?

What's the point of accepting defeat without a fight?

Translated by Vivian L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 波浪滲 (Wave Shum)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-14-2014/16342

Some Hongkongers have a tendency of saying there is nothing left in our city to fight for, there's no use however hard you fight. But when you ask, "So what should we do?" They solemnly uphold inaction and declare "We hate politics", or go like "Hong Kong is doomed and we are moving abroad." But the problem is, not only do they firmly hold that there's nothing to be done, but they would do whatever in their power to stop anyone from trying. They sneer at you from the sidelines and say whatever you do is like "pissing in the wind"; no matter what the results, you are "too violent"; and whoever is involved are "thugs". And they pride themselves on their indifference in all these. They are the wisest of all.

So what exactly is this kind of thinking? Doomsayers like them expect failure before even fighting back. They think Hongkongers are bound for failure. Who would admit defeat without even one fight? Who would surrender before a battle? Losers do.

When you talk about fighting the commies, they go, "What makes you think you can fight with China?"

When you talk about campaigning, they go, "What makes you think protesting is useful?"

OK, now you rally support on Facebook, and there they are again, "Seriously, what else can you 'keyboard fighters' do besides updating Facebook?"

What they don't know is oftentimes tyrannical laws and policies are held off or even canceled because of people who dare to fight. From Article 23 that blatantly tramples freedom of speech to the recent Northeastern New Territories development plan that uproots homes of thousands, if it hadn't been the people who fight back, these would all have been passed.

If you don't try, you are never going to succeed.

Trying to fight for something you believe in is always better than sitting there waiting for miracle to happen.

A helpful person is one who steers you in the right direction when you've gone off track; it is one who discusses campaign strategies with you and finds ways to succeed when you fail; a helpful person is not one who admit in defeat, "Hong Kong is set for demise. Nothing can be done while we wait to be digested by China." This kind of people is literally waiting to die, politically speaking. Even if you have come to their rescue, they would just pull you into their grave.

Many Hongkongers have a tendency to do just that. Some people think they themselves are nothing; they even think our Hong Kong is nothing. They are pessimistic about everything, yet they will not do anything to change. I call them "Kong-null": they think of nothing, do nothing, and end up with nothing. They are bound for an eternal state of limbo: a place of nothingness; nothing can change, no one can leave.

Tang: What Is Beijing So Afraid of?

What Is Beijing So Afraid of?

Translated by Vivian L. and Karen L., Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by 無妄齋 (Edward Tang)

Original: http://localpresshk.com/2014/06/white-paper/ 

Looking back when Hong Kong is still a British colony: the time around 1982-84 is the watershed in the developmental history of the post-war Hong Kong under the Queen's rule. Prior to 1982, colonial rule saw an unprecedented success in carving Hong Kong into a prosperous metropolis. Yet from policy making to the running of government, Hongkongers' involvement had been minimal, if not none at all. The colonial government had had little to say on the ways people live or do business, and government intervention was next to nothing. Without doubt, the long-standing policy of positive non-interventionism had brought us prosperity and stability, but it also planted the seed of capitalist greed, that paved the way to ever widening income gap that plagues the city to this day. In terms of politics, majority of Hong Kong people were apathetic. Public education under British rule was such that people were discouraged from discussing in political issues. Matters were dealt only by the colonial administration but never taken directly to the Queen in the continent.

Hong Kong: from highly capitalist to highly political

Things changed after 1984. The Sino-British joint declaration had been signed. The transfer of sovereignty to China was a done deal. Some Hongkongers were more optimistic about the future following the handover. They placed their hopes on constitutional reform and the drafting of the Basic Law. While some voiced their opinions to the Chinese government through the Xinhua News Agency's local branch, the Drafting Committee, Consultative Committee for the Basic Law, some formed pressure groups and started political parties, ran for legislature, pursued social activism, initiated discussion on Hong Kong's future in public discourse, these all helped created political momentum in the local population. Meanwhile, as the British gradually relinquished power over the territory to prepare for the ultimate departure, a new power was consolidating its political prowess. On the economic side, the colony continued to thrive by the looks of things, but capitalists who were wheeling the city's economy had other plans in their minds.

In the face of unpredictable changes, many Hongkongers felt powerless.  And this is not hard to fathom. There was no way the British would give up the enormous China market for the sake of a tiny Pearl of the Orient, so it was a time to plan an elegant exit rather than help Hong Kong resist the Communists. On the other hand, China was eager to reclaim its long lost land.

But for the whole period of turmoil, Hongkongers had been shut out of the negotiation table of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Even after the negotiations, the public was not consulted before it was passed. In other words, for the ordinary people of Hong Kong, it was merely a change of flags from the Union Jack to China’s red banner. The question of whether China would honour its pledge to maintain Hong Kong people’s way of life for the next 50 years remained uncertain, for we were not in command in our own affairs.

What awaited was a succession of changes. There were talks of constitutional reform and the Basic Law, and the establishment of committee after committee such as the Drafting and Consultation Committees, the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group and the Sino-British Land Commission. Hong Kong had gone from a money-making metropolis to a city of heated politics.

Many who had led a life free from politics were now baffled by the whole new state of affairs. A number of concerns were rife among Hongkongers: Will the pledge of one country two systems, high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong be realized? Can the Chinese Communist Party be trusted? What would sent Hong Kong into a state of upheaval? The string of questions pointed to one origin: the people of Hong Kong were unsure of their new ruler. The doubt cast then persists even to this day.

The last governor of colonial Hong Kong (source)

Beijing's roadmap towards universal suffrage fixed long ago

While the powerlessness that haunt Hongkongers lingers on, the consultation on electoral reforms is now on full whack, but the public has yet to reach a consensus on the system of universal suffrage. Amid fierce debate among Hongkongers over the issue, the Chinese State Council Information Office published a white paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" on June 10, appearing to be echoing Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor in her remark about public nomination three months ago, when the Chief Secretary sided with Peking University law professor Rao Geping in ruling out public nomination, saying Rao’s comment on the city's electoral reform “set a definitive tone”. Adding even more uncertainty to the upcoming electronic referendum to select a universal suffrage proposal on June 22.

As a white paper is an authoritative document that serves as a prelude to presenting major policies, it is safe to assume that Beijing has fixed upon a narrative on Hong Kong's roadmap towards universal suffrage for long. And its plan will presumably be highly exclusive. The two rounds of consultation merely act as smoke screen of delaying tactics.

The white paper extends over some 10,000 words, but there is little new all the same. It repeatedly stresses how Hong Kong is "indebted" to China, and that Beijing is in command of Hong Kong’s political future with legal and practical grounds. Albeit lacking in novelty, there are two points worth noting.

Powers to supervise new laws, declare state of emergency, make new authorization

First, in principle, the content of the white paper is not in violation of the Basic Law. It also shows Beijing’s consistent stance on Hong Kong. In particular, the section “The central leadership directly exercises jurisdiction over the HKSAR in accordance with the law” contains elements that are seldom covered. Now let us take a closer look at some key parts (to reveal) other implication beyond the obvious.

The NPC Standing Committee has … 

“… the power of supervision over the laws formulated by the legislative organs of the HKSAR” (verse 17);

On the surface it means every new law or amendment passed by Hong Kong’s legislature shall be “put on record” at the NPC, granting the NPC actual power of supervision in Hong Kong’s lawmaking. But on closer look, this power is not comprehensive but a limited one (link). In practice, only when the body of the law either involves matter handled by the central government or Hong Kong-mainland relations does the NPC has powers to oversee the legislation, remit any new law that contravenes the national constitution to the SAR government and declare it unconstitutional. The way the white paper addresses its power “to supervise” and to demand “record” is clearly misleading.

“… the power of decision on the HKSAR entering a state of emergency” (verse 18);

This refers to in the event of rebellion threatening social security that has advanced beyond the government’s control, the NPC has the authority to declare Hong Kong to be in a state of emergency, and in turn effect an order to enforce the national law on national defense as detailed in Annex 3.  According to the Law of the People's Republic of China on Garrisoning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Chief Executive may ask the central government for assistance from the Hong Kong PLA Garrison in the “maintenance of public order”, and the power of command shall rest with the CE or the PLA officer authorized by him. One cannot help but be reminded of the CE race 2 years ago when then contending CE Leung Chun-ying was rumoured to have said in an Executive Council meeting shortly after the July 1 protest in 2003 that he intended to crack down protesters with riot police and tear gas [report by Badcanto]. Should a riot broke out in Hong Kong, the idea that someone could order an crackdown by riot police and the Chinese army by a mere command is enough to make anyone panic.

“… the power of making new authorization for the HKSAR” (verse 2[sic])

This indicates that the high degree of autonomy, including executive, legislation and jurisdiction powers, as prescribed by the Basic Law that Hong Kong enjoys today is subject to the authorization of the central government. Judging from the political reality at present, it is highly unlikely Beijing would insist on exercising its jurisdiction to redefine the scope of Hong Kong’s autonomy, thus risking constitutional crisis, but a statement like this means that the so-called “high degree of autonomy” is far from indestructible. On that account, such can be viewed as an act to intimidate. Much similar to how chairman of the NPC Law Committee Qiao Xiaoyang said last year that the Beijing will not appoint a CE who go against China.

Reading between the lines, it is clear that the white paper is gearing towards public nomination and the referendum, while the subsequent Occupy Central movement is seen as a gesture of defying the Communist rule. In the eyes of China’s top officials, past citizens’ movement on the mass scale have encouraged the idea that showcasing the power of the people can force Beijing to answer people’s wishes. Therefore, it now has to reiterate “historic facts” and “legal grounds” to guide public discourse. It starts off with the “power to supervise over lawmaking” to illustrate that any proposal of universal suffrage that goes against the Beijing’s interests, albeit backed by a popular vote, will be rejected without second thought. Then with another round of literary and political attack, Beijing once again warns the opposition camp must not provoke the bottom line of CCP through means like civil disobedience, as the final call is made by the CCP.

Sign reads: Carry Forward Revolutionary Traditions, Promote Communist Ideologies

(source)

“Love China, Love HK” resurfaces

Ever since Qiao put forward the criteria that the CE candidates must be patriots who “love China and love Hong Kong”. Politicians and scholars alike rushed to decipher his true meaning. Pan-democrats also protest against the requirement that the CE “must not be confrontational towards the central government” fearing Beijing has closed the door on them. Even the patriotism criterion “love China and love Hong Kong” is not written on the Basic Law, nor on the decisions or any legal documents of the NPC, people readily conceive the concept, which is neither legal nor realistic, only to be baffled by its political and legal implications. Now the white paper has formally adopted these words of patriotic declaration as part of a guiding document despite the fact that the no formal definition has been given about concept itself. With reference to Article 43 of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive is responsible to the central government and the HKSAR government, none of which include being patriotic in any way.

To further elaborate the criteria in addition to what’s written in the law, Qiao defined the candidates for CE were “not to take part in activities such as attempting to overthrow the Chinese government or undermine the mainland's socialist system”, whereas Rao Geping asserted CE hopefuls must “uphold the Basic Law and China’s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong… and that in recognizing China’s sovereignty and its jurisdiction over Hong Kong, one would be obligated to love the country, and safeguard national interests, and ensure the implementation of ‘one country, two systems’ and the Basic Law.”

These restrictions show how fearful the Communist Party is of party politics taking roots in Hong Kong. It was feared that those in the opposition camp who gather year after year demanding the vindication of Tian'anmen Massacre, and the end to the rule of the Chinese Communist Party would rise to the ruling class if Hong Kong is to realize real party politics, Hong Kong would then turn into a centre of subversion against Communist rule. Outside forces would be introduced to weaken and challenge the very root of China’s governance and ideologies, political systems and constitution. Even the most dreaded idea of independence would mushroom to split the country.

In reality, Beijing’s fears, each arising from failing to extend the country’s stability maintenance machine into the territory, have yet to happen. Anyone who speak up for the sake of the country’s fundamental interests and Hong Kong’s long-term interest on the whole cannot escape the faith of being labelled trouble-making rebels. One of the vices of Chinese societies is that the ruling class and those who enjoy vested interests would often turn a deaf ear to criticisms towards themselves regardless of their substance and intent. Worse still, those who raise voice would be denounced as trouble seekers. In today’s Hong Kong, people who have no principles litter the place, whereas people who stands up for one’s beliefs are hard to come by.

Meanwhile in Britain, the opposition camp prides itself as “Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition”. Being a patriot should never be confused with being a parrot to who submit oneself to authority.

A poster calling on Chief Executive, CY Leung to step down (source)

“Patriotism” not a gauge of leadership

Consider an example: if you are to seek advice from someone, but you screen every candidate with of the gauge of being a Marxist, then the people you can consult with would be limited to those who advocate Marxism. Fortunately, Hong Kong prior to the handover operates on meritocracy, as former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping famously said, “White cat, black cat, what does it matter as long as it catches mice?” No one would judge you based on your family’s wealth or lineage, but on professional merits. No one cares if you are patriotic, but if you are up for the job. Puppets who answer blindly to political leaders are always abound, but those who truly know the right thing to do are a rare sort. Puppets who answer blindly to Beijing are always abound, but true leaders who know what’s right for Hong Kong are a rare sort. They have their own vision and values of leading the city independent of outside influences. They will not be contend with being Beijing’s puppets.

This brings us back to the dilemma of Chinese politics: an authoritarian regime breeds flunkies who know nothing but to make their master happy. An exact opposite of meritocracy, powers are not rewarded based on excellence nor popular consent. For instance, a Chinese political leader is much like a rich man with a lot of children. Imagine one day he decided to give all his wealth to the child who shows the most love and respect for him. What do you think happen next? Everyone will put on their filial piety face. Some may be genuine, some not. But you can never tell. So the father finally passes away and the one who put on the best act gets everything. Only then will the deceitful heir shows his true self. Whether it is former British administration or the top brass of state-controlled conglomerates, putting on a patriotic act and slamming rivals as not being patriotic enough becomes a rather cheap stunt.

Universal suffrage of CE: Beijing and local opinions equal

Hong Kong’s political situation exists rather a congenital conflict than a sudden mutation as CE in the current system has been selected by a small circle election and has been appointed by the central government of People's Republic of China. Beijing's marionette seems to be the system's nature while at the same time, half the members of the Legislative Council can be selected by the public. In this way, legislators will have to vote according to public will, in order to retain their posts.

Leadership failures suffered from C.H. Tung to C.Y. Leung can be traced back to the same root -- public will has been put behind the orders of Chinese Communist Party. They both uphold the executive dominance, as a result, the inaccessibility of ordinary operations in legislature and judiciary are encountered. To untie this dead knot, what possibly can Hong Kong do?

Take Chris Patten, the Lord Patten of Barnes and the last Governor of Hong Kong, as an example and you'll fully understand it. He had governed not only with Charisma and sophisticated political spin, but with his boldness confronting with Beijing's views, for the benefit of Hongkongers.

Only the government with civil identification, as anyone who has an understanding of politics might know, is able to be a strong one. Otherwise nothing significant can be done. Patten knows this principle, that is why a weak status has never calling for him. If he was to attempt the other way round, it would stand for no possibilities for his "dignified and honorable" withdrawal from Hong Kong.

In times of British Hong Kong, before the election system been introduced, such conflict were not sowed. The reason is straightforward --The Governor of Hong Kong and the Legislative Councillors are appointed directly by British Foreign and Commonwealth Office with no public involvement and intervention. Translation: To stay in office, it's all about obedience to only British.

A twist has come to the Board since 1985 when the LegCo of Hong Kong started to introduce part of the members by direct election. British recognised the old method was no longer feasible for governance, which then evolved into situation against Beijing. Even Patten was condemned by Lu Ping as a "wrongdoer who would be condemned for a thousand generations", he still got the mission completed and received praises from many regarding his effective governance of Hong Kong. 

CE meant to be the communication bridge between Hong Kong and mainland China

To be CE of today, some say it takes to choose between acting as a tame parrot of Beijing or being a much revered leader of Hong Kong. You may wonder, does it truly not leaving the criteria much freedom of manoeuvre? Well, I say, false dilemma is it. To be a successful CE, the one is capable both to observe and to act. Taking citizens' views into consideration and prescribing the existing problems some appropriate strategies should come first in his/her mind.

The striving progress of universal suffrage for 07/08 and now for 17/20 -- Aiming to select CE in 2017 and to form the LegCo in 2020 by direct election has shown Hongkongers’ eagerness pushig forward the democractic development after the handover of Hong Kong. Through years of effort and pains, opposite voices are still there claiming that Hongkongers should patiently wait for a "progressive democracy" as a result of the unawareness of Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR and CE reporting conservative and filtered opinions to the central government would gradually become a resistance force of universal suffrage.

The CE has a vital role being a connection between Hong Kong and mainland China, which he/ she on one hand assists decisions making of the central government, on the otherIllegally speaking, "One Country" might go first rather than "Two Systems", but when it comes to practical governance, it's upside down. Thus a CE should follow shift a balance between the two.

In politics, Hongkongers have been longing for democracy, which purpose not to opposing the central government in the first place. On livelihood issues, Hongkongers desire the ruler to weigh options carefully taking into account citizens' feelings instead of just follow those awkward data from quantitative analysis. Combined with timely reflections and corrections followed by huge mistakes, it is a promising and responsible government.

The sign reads: The things in the world - If I give out alms, then it's yours; if I don't, you can't asked for it. (Source)

What is Beijing’s fear?

The cause of concerns raised by leaders of Chinese Communist Party is the distrust of Hongkongers. They don't seem to understand Hongkongers’ unwillingness to turn their home into a chaos, which reveals in each and every large-scale demonstration. You'll always find Hongkongers remain peaceful behaviours in rallies unlike citizens in other districts or countries who might probably bring serious sanguinary conflicts, even with a smaller number of protesters than Hong Kong.

Hongkongers act sensibly and rationally, no matter striving for which election. They have realised the existing system is suppressing the function of political parties.

Legislatures of many advanced countries in the West are constituted through full democracy. So far they have been carrying out effective governance. It is supposed to be a normal question to ask why couldn't Beijing allow it in Hong Kong? What is wrong with the world’s trend? What is Beijing so afraid of?

Hong Kong's political situation remains to be shrouded by uncertainty. It's impossible for Hong Kong to develop party alternation, but only to continue being a paper tiger government. The existence of this white paper worsens the existing problems. And by a simple estimation, universal suffrage will stay unrealised in the future. As Peter Woo's statement on the annual general meeting of the Wharf Holdings Limited mentioned, "Hong Kong is said to remain unchanged for 50 years ONLY and ONLY got 34 more years left for now. You all better behave yourself."

Wing: The Target Audience of “DADDY, PAPA, and ME” Is Not Limited to Children

The Target Audience of “DADDY, PAPA, and ME” Is Not Limited to Children

Transedited by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/06/11/74956 

                                                                              (Source: Flickr user Franco Folini)

I just read an article titled "Public Libraries Are Not Private Clubs for Organisations Concerning Gay and Lesbian Rights" (公共圖書館不是同志團體的私人俱樂部) on VJMedia. Its title resembles a commentary by Lewis Loud, "Public Libraries Are Not Private Clubs for Organisations Concerning Religious Practice and Conservative Stance" (公共圖書館不是保守及宗教團體的私人俱樂部), while judging from its content, the piece I read just yet endeavours to pose an opposition of Lewis Loud’s points of view.

Here I am not going to point out the exact examples of insufficient support and logical fallacy in that piece, as the comments at the end of the page have done the job perfectly. 

But there's one message inside it which I feel necessary to express discontent. It says, "Those organisations concerning gay and lesbian rights have treated rightful children adoption a trophy of equality, rather than a responsibility of love and care."

I wonder why that commentator could suddenly jump to such an arbitrary conclusion to belittle gays and lesbians, claiming that they must have had an irregular and unusual agenda on children adoption. Why couldn't they be regarded and sympathised as any other infertile couples?

This discrimination worshipper acts as if he is the guidance of "correct values" to readers and claimed not once that he himself remains objective to the matter, however, too obvious he has been possessing a double standard viewing the heterosexuals and homosexuals. 

Now, back to "DADDY, PAPA, and ME", a book mentioned as an example of complaint lodged by the anti-gays-and-lesbians organisations in opposition to libraries putting it on shelf, does anyone ever ponder its existence? 

Please do not presume it as a tool for gays and lesbians to "assert equality" in the first place. What I see is that, its existence serves as socialisation, educating young readers that families with homosexual couples are nothing different with that of heterosexual couples. Love is there for children and it's no exception for families with homosexual couples. Young readers are to learn from this book the spirit to treat others with an ordinary heart of understanding, acceptance and respect, which has considerable influence with one's mental growth.

To children, "DADDY, PAPA, and ME" is a must. And to whom doesn't have a clear concept of respect and love without boundaries, I highly recommend this book to them.

Beijing: Be Vigilant against External Forces Interfering China through HK

Beijing: Be vigilant against External Forces Interfering China through HK

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠 and Vivian L., Written by The House News
Original: http://thehousenews.com/politics/北京發一國兩制白皮書-稱對港有-全面管治權 

'External forces using HK' - Beijing [RTHK English News, 10 June 2014] 10-06-2014
The State Council has called for vigilance against external forces making use of Hong Kong to intervene in China's internal affairs.In a white paper issued by its information office, it called for the suppression of "the very few people" that collude with outside forces to damage the implementation of One Country, Two Systems in Hong Kong.
It also noted that some deep-seated conflicts were gaining greater prominence, and different sectors should try to resolve them collectively.

The Chinese State Council published a report on "one country, two systems" policy today, saying some people in Hong Kong are "confused and lopsided" in their understanding of the policy and the Basic Law, and have "wrong viewpoints" in the constitutional reform discussion. The White Paper also reinstates that, the actual power Hong Kong has to exercise its High Degree of Autonomy depends on how much power the central government is willing to delegate. It also states that "One Country" and "Two Systems" are not on par with each other, with "One Country" being the prerequisite and "Two Systems" belonging to and deriving from "One Country". In its implementation, the central government has "COMPREHENSIVE JURISDICTION" over Hong Kong, and Hong Kong has authority only on its local affairs.

HK Information Services Department issued a statement in response, saying that "The White Paper is an important document on which every Hong Kong citizen should gain a comprehensive understanding. The Government will facilitate public access to the White Paper through different channels, including uploading the full text of the document to the Government's e-bulletin and the Basic Law websites, and inviting the Central Government officials concerned to conduct briefing sessions with HKSAR Government officials and members of the community respectively." The government will also invite central government officials to explain this document to the Hong Kong officials and general public. Chief Executive CY Leung will hold a press conference this afternoon (10th June) on the matter.

This is the first White Paper issued by the State Council on the practice of one country, two systems. The document reiterates the "it is necessary to stay alert to the attempt of outside forces to use Hong Kong to interfere in China's domestic affairs, and prevent and repel the attempt made by a very small number of people who act in collusion with outside forces to interfere with the implementation of 'one country, two Systems' in Hong Kong".

Regarding political reforms, the White Paper states blatantly that the people who rule Hong Kong must above all "loves the country and Hong Kong", and require the systems of universal suffrage for CE and LegCo elections must "serve the country's sovereignty, security and development interests".

Key quotes from the White Paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"
Full text: Traditional Chinese / English (SCMP) / Report: English (Xinhuanet)

The Central government has "comprehensive jurisdiction" over HKSAR

The central government exercises overall jurisdiction over the HKSAR, including the powers directly exercised by the central government, and the powers delegated to the HKSAR by the central government to enable it to exercise a high degree of autonomy in accordance with the law. The central government has the power of oversight over the exercise of a high degree of autonomy in the HKSAR.

 As a unitary state, China's central government has comprehensive jurisdiction over all local administrative regions, including the HKSAR. The high degree of autonomy of HKSAR is not an inherent power, but one that comes solely from the authorization by the central leadership. The high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR is not full autonomy, nor a decentralized power. It is the power to run local affairs as authorized by the central leadership. The high degree of autonomy of HKSAR is subject to the level of the central leadership's authorization. There is no such thing called "residual power."

"One country" and "two systems" are not on a par with each other

The "one country" is the premise and basis of the "two systems," and the "two systems" is subordinate to and derived from "one country." But the "two systems" under the "one country" are not on a par with each other. The fact that the mainland, the main body of the country, embraces socialism will not change.

* The "one country" means that within the PRC, HKSAR is an inseparable part and a local administrative region directly under China's Central People's Government. As a unitary state, China's central government has comprehensive jurisdiction over all local administrative regions, including the HKSAR. The high degree of autonomy of HKSAR is not an inherent power, but one that comes solely from the authorization by the central leadership. The high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR is not full autonomy, nor a decentralized power. It is the power to run local affairs as authorized by the central leadership. The high degree of autonomy of HKSAR is subject to the level of the central leadership's authorization. There is no such thing called "residual power."

"Wrong views" on one country, two systems and the Basic Law stifle economic and social development

... [T]he practice of "one country, two systems" has come to face new circumstances and new problems. Some people in Hong Kong have yet felt comfortable with the changes. Still some are even confused or lopsided in their understanding of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law. Many wrong views that are currently rife in Hong Kong concerning its economy, society and development of its political structure are attributable to this.

... Each of these provisions must be understood in the context of the Basic Law and the HKSAR system as a whole. The implementation of the Basic Law shows that if we comprehend individual provisions of the Basic Law in an isolated way without taking into account the Basic Law as a whole, stressing one aspect while ignoring others, ambiguity or even contentious interpretation will occur, which will severely hamper the implementation of the Basic Law.

CE elected by universal suffrage must love China and love Hong Kong

The central government continues its support for the HKSAR in developing a system of democratic governance that suits the actual conditions in Hong Kong in a gradual and orderly manner as provided for in the provisions of the Basic Law. The ultimate aim of selection of the chief executive will be one by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures and the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. This solemn commitment of the central government has been incorporated in the Basic Law and the relevant resolutions by the NPC Standing Committee. The central government is sincerely in favor of moving Hong Kong's democratic governance forward. The system of universal suffrage for selecting the chief executive and forming the Legislative Council must serve the country's sovereignty, security and development interests, tally with Hong Kong's actual conditions, take into consideration the interests of all social strata, give expression to the principle of equal participation, and be conducive to the development of capitalism in Hong Kong. In particular, the systems must conform to HKSAR's legal status as a local administrative region directly under the central government and accord with the Basic Law and relevant resolutions adopted by the NPC Standing Committee. Furthermore, the chief executive to be elected by universal suffrage must be a person who loves the country and Hong Kong. As long as all sectors of the Hong Kong society hold pragmatic discussions and build a consensus based on the above principles, these two ultimate goals are sure to be reached.

Be vigilant against outside forces attempting to disrupt the practice of "one country, two systems"

...[S]tay alert to the attempt of outside forces to use Hong Kong to interfere in China's domestic affairs, and prevent and repel the attempt made by a very small number of people who act in collusion with outside forces to interfere with the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong.

Wing: "Post-80s" Again? Cover something else!

"Post-80s" Again? Cover something else!

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-09-2014/16086 
As original sources are in Chinese, I am not gonna re-link them.

(Post-80s Decoration Workers: Earn 15k per month and save 10k)
(Source: Screen capture of Sky Post)

According to EVCHK, since 2010, the society has started coining the phrase "Post-80s" for youngsters who were born in 1980s, labelling them as "rebellious, self-centred, lazy and irresponsible". Up to now, 2014, nearly half of the "Post-80s" have entered the journey of the age of 30 or 30 something. But still, the media just cannot let go and keeps judging this group of people for no reason. 

Cases are many. Post-80s graduates require $11,000 as monthly salary while Ming Pao quoted analysis from their human resources consultants, criticising the graduates "having a high requirement". Ta Kung Pao quoted analysis from a university professor, indicating that graduates cannot find jobs because they prefer not to work in construction sites or wash dishes. Fine, in such situation, some graduates go for grassroot jobs instead. Doing exactly what these media ask them to, that's good, huh? Yet, nothing gets better. Sarcasm from a big title on Apple Daily read, "U-Grads Grabbing Jobs from Old Security Guards", but the fact is that these graduates don't get paid more because of their identity. Their salary depends on the nature of job, grassroot jobs, grassroot wages. Not to mention they have to take care of their parents, repay tuition debts and pay for transportation and meals, which is known as heavy burden living in Hong Kong. Thus the only choice they have is to live with their parents. HKET, however, said "When is the end of youngsters sticking to their parents?", criticising that the youngsters "sorely focus on entertainment and are not willing to carry the responsibilities to be independent."

How can dish washers or security guards afford such skyrocketing rent in Hong Kong? Okay, if they are not allowed to stick with their parents, as what the media assumes, then maybe they could find another way out, like applying for public housing (PRH). But it doesn't shut the media's mouth. Sky Post quoted a professor's words, "PRH is originally designed for grassroots. Graduates' applications for them are bad for their personal development and the overall societal development." Hey, just awhile ago Ta Kung Pao said youngsters should not hate grassroot jobs! Now graduates do grassroot jobs as they wish. Then what makes the problems for them applying for grassroot welfare? Their identities being graduates are not helpful at all to earn a relatively handsome salary compare to other grassroot job workers. It's not making any sense for these judgments.

Some said, "Hey, they are just trash. If they are competent enough to be like doctors, then they would not be judged in that way." People who possess that thought are wrong. Few days ago, Sky Post again introduced a Post-80s doctor with $60,000 monthly salary, and after all, he is not a spendthrift! Isn't he perfect? But this one's perfection is then claimed as useless by a HKU professor, "Lack of social life and interpersonal skills ruin everything." How far-fetched! People not willing to talk to someone doesn't make them dumb people; People not willing to entertain others doesn't necessarily make them "lack of interpersonal skills". Completely forced and fabricated are this professor's speech.

Some other people then suggested that "Post-80s" should not study in universities, which save a lot of troubles, and that they can simply be blue-collar workers instead. This is just too naive for them being hopelessly optimistic about the media's ability to criticise. This time, Sky Post griped this tiny problem and covered a story of a "Post-80s" decoration worker who did not go to university. This one saves $10,000 while he earns $15,000 each month, as he wants to save more money to buy a flat in the future. But his story doesn't appeal other media, which judged him along with that doctor as lack of social life. All because he wants to save money! If he has to build social connection, it got to spend money and a flat he dreamed to possess have to be postponed... the story followed will be not hard to guess. HKET may probably ask him "why are you sticking with your parents?" and may even suggest him to find part-time jobs during his holidays!  

Here comes my conclusion: in the eyes of the media, whatever the "Post-80s" do are wrong, and so they have to find things to nit-pick on by whatever means - whether they choose to go to university; whether they take up grassroot jobs; whether they have a handsome salary; whether they make social connection; whether they save money... There are many other things worthwhile to cover! "Post-80s" here and "Post-80s" there... OH JEEZ, CUT ME SOME SLACK!

Favabean: Analysis on what happened on 6th June night in Legco

Analysis on Push-and-shove Incident on 6th June night in Legco

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Fava Bean／肝醣爆裂 (Some details are included in the English version as supplement); Original article


Details: (RTHK English News) Scuffles break out at LegCo Building
Passion Times Live Programme (Cantonese) [Press Part 3 to see the situation] 熱血政治（按第三節看當時情況）

(Image source: Passion Times)

約50位反新界東北發展示威者於下午5點衝入立會靜坐抗議，並於晚上11點左右和平散去。

在這個階段評論是次衝入立法院（編按：應為立法會，下同）的行動成功與否，是沒有意義的，重點是下一步，也就是星期一（按：有謂下星期五，為尊重作者，保留之），村民會怎樣做？是繼續在外圍靜坐，還是再次衝入立法會？這回能不能事先號召更多人？

政治需要舞台效果，能帶來效果的，從來都是一些Brandnew的東西，有如首次50萬人遊行之於23條，首次包圍立法會之於国民教育，澳門人首次遊行之於離補法案；成為常規的行動反而不會帶來效果，蓋因政府已經習慣了，能清楚預見後果。

衝入立法院是香港史中前所未見的，能帶來政治能量，提高新北（按︰新界）東北議題的能見度；但規模太小，人數、時間皆短，故能否延續這段政治能量，還得看村民的下一步。

Around 50 protesters shoved into Legco to have a sit-in demonstrations at 5pm, and left peacefully at 11pm on 6th June. They oppose the Northeast New Territories Development Plan (NENT Plan), and 6th June is the date of Finance Panel voting for or against the appropriation. At 8pm, Yip Po-lam (a notorious "experienced" activists who loves self-delusion) asked to take a group photo, and Wong Yeung-tat (the chief of Civic Passion) did not want to join them, so Wong's bloc went outside the main door of Legco. Police arrived after 8pm (8:15 I guess), and they tried to block the access to the Legco building. Some members of Civic Passion and other citizens helped to maintain the door open and accessible, but the police and the demonstrators kept on pushing and shoving, as the police were determined to hold a stiff man-chain. The meeting was adjourned and will be continued next Monday.

It is not meaningful for us to discuss whether such action is meaningful. The main point is what would the villagers do on next Monday [should be next Friday]? Sit in the ground floor, or rush into the chamber? Can they manage to call more supporters?

Politics needs dramatic effect. Brand new things can bring that. Like, 500,000 demonstrators against Article 23 for the first time in 2003, or surrounding Legco as in anti-national-education campaign in 2012 - what becomes regular will not bring effect, as the government gets used to it, and they can see the consequences.

It is unprecedented for rushing into the chamber: it can bring political power and raise the visibility of the NENT issue; but the scale is small, time is short, and number of protesters are but a few - so can such political power continues? It depends on the next step of villagers.

===
中共當年在一窮二白的狀況下崛起，就是得靠統戰：拉攏次要敵人，打擊主要敵人。今晚立法會靜坐活動，團體間的內哄依舊令人失望。我想問村民：別人過來反東北抗爭抽水比較可恥，還是政府直接奪去你的土地比較可恥？我想問熱血：村民罵你比較噁心，還是整個東北給政府搶去比較噁心？承認事實吧，衝進去的是村民，擋門擋警察的是熱血，缺了誰都不行。目標當前，甚麼抽水冤枉都毫不重要，風波過後你愛怎麼批鬥對方就怎麼批鬥，現在風頭火勢，反東北發展者本身就勢孤力弱，你還自我分化，把力氣花在責備對方上，傻撚左？

暫時放下私怨吧，那是和平時期才用得到的東西。星期一那天，香港市民到底能做甚麼？我對下一步的興趣，遠超過於今晚的是非曲直。

CCP established their foothold in the times of extreme poverty, they relied heavily on "United Front": "include secondary enemies to attack major enemy". It is still disheartening to see such hostility between two sides when sit-in took place.

To Villagers: Is it more despicable to see others take a bit of verbal advantage on the NENT struggle, or to see the government grab your land undisguisedly?

To Civic Passion: Is it more unbearable to see villagers yelled and scolded at you, or to see the entire NENT being grabbed by the government?

Admit the fact: the first-comers were the villagers, those maintaining access were the Civic Passion supporters. It does take two to tango. The goal is set, it is no longer important to see who's framed at the moment. After this you can criticise in whatever means you like. Now it's under the limelight. The anti-NENT-plan demonstrators are weak and feeble in nature, and yet you are still inciting splitting powers and blaming each other! ARE YOU FREAKING NUTS?

Put away your own resentment, that's something you'd use during peaceful times. What can Hongkongers do on the next Monday [should be Friday]? I am more interested on that rather on the justice today (6th June).
===
就東北發展問題，也看到左翼和本土派的撕裂狀態如何削弱香港公民力量，誠為可惜。東北發展問題，理論上能通吃兩方，左翼不滿新界受資本主義魔掌侵入，本土派憂心新北東北內將會出現中国租界，但結果反東北的團體幾乎全是左翼，令反東北抗爭失去本土力量誠為可惜。

本土派被左派譏為鍵盤戰士，有道理：當初新界東北被發展的曲頭甫冒時，與村民連立聯繫的是左翼社運人，本土派卻缺了席。本土派不夠「在地化」，暫時還未跳出中港矛盾的框架，擴展中港熔和的議題。

然而，左翼搞的社運往往有點排他性，當「反對發展新界東北」被定調成「反資本主義」社運時，它在某程度也排除了本土派的參予。這讓我想起太陽花社運時，有左翼表示反服貿本質上是全球自由化，而非逄（逢）中必反。別人要強姦你時，你該考慮自己守護的是身體自主權還是父權社會下的貞潔想像，還是先反抗再說？社運需要論述，但我們需要兼容並蓄的多元論述，多管其下，吸引多方客源。面對建設時，社會永遠都是弱勢，我們只能吸收不同的力量，主旨可能相異，目標卻得相同，這樣才有勝利的可能；而非追求純潔的社運，非得理念相同才能同行。

總之，本土不夠在地，左翼搞運動又排他，雙方都有錯，沒有誰比誰更高尚，兩方都開始自我完善吧。

本土派和左派在中港議題上目標相左，儘可批鬥對方，批鬥得精彩還能派花生給觀眾，提高政治議題能見度，好事一楮（樁）；然而，若碰到目標相同的議題，雙方則應放下歧見合作。世上沒有永遠的敵人，也沒有永遠的戰友，只有目標。

PS至於去立法會大合照那位，你究竟做乜撚？你去抗爭定去郊遊？呢啲帶嚟負面效果嘅人，我真係寧願佢討厭政治，留屋企訓覺。

As for NENT, you can see how left wings and nativists are lacerating the civil energy of Hong Kong - it's a pity. [Editor's note: we choose to use nativists in this article due to translation issue]  Anti-NENT plan issue can actually benefit both parties: left wings are opposing the intrusion of capitalistic consortia; nativists worried there will be "Chinese concession" in NENT. But most anti-NENT organisations are left wings, and it makes nativists pity as there is little involvement there.

Nativists are often mocked as "Keyboard fighters" by left wings - they have their grounds: when NENT was announced to be planned and developed, the left wing activists were the first batch to contact villagers, nativists were absent. Nativists are not "localised". They are still kept in the box on HK-China conflicts and do not expand to issues other than HK-China conflicts.

Yet, the social movements held by the left wing are usually exclusive. When they define "anti-NENT-plan" as "anti-capitalism" social movement, it excluded the chance of nativists participating on a certain degree. It reminds me of the anti-CSSTA protests in Taiwan early this year. Some left wings said anti-CSSTA is liberalisation of the world, but not "against China whenever it's about China". When others want to rape you, do you consider to protect your body's own autonomy, or the virgin image under patriarchal society, or FIGHT? Social movements need discourse, but we need multi-pronged discourse and absorb people's opinion. When we face construction, the society will always be on the weaker side, and we have to absorb various power. Our themes might not be the same, but our target must be, then there can be a chance to win. We are not seeking for purity in social movement. We can allow differences in ideals.

In short, nativists are not localised enough, left wings are exclusive in movements. Both parties are problematic, "none of the parties are nobler than others", and both parties should improve themselves.

Nativists and left wings always disagree, and can criticise each others, and raise the visibility of the issue, which is good; yet for issues with similar goals, they should put the difference aside. "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies."

P.S.: For the one who took a group photo in Legco, WTF are you doing? Are you holding a social movement or a picnic? I would rather see these bugs "hating politics" and sleep at home instead.

===
檢討一下今日行動，好方便日後行動規劃。今晚立法會內人一直稀少，只有百來人，初始人數和動員力皆有問題。

台灣太陽花學運中，攻佔立法會的學生有300人，是50人的6倍；動員力也不及台灣﹣﹣當然，台灣那批學生多有社運經驗，村民沒有其人脈，實乃非戰之罪。先天不足，得靠後天補足，今天在立法會大堂靜坐的活動，Gimmick有餘，後勁不足，說明村民在下回行動前，應仔細考慮人力問題。

在動員力不足的情況下，50人起義實在太勉強，是否應先召集足夠人數（如300人），才突擊以求一擊即中？今天事出突然，不少支援村民者遲收風，過了一兩個小時才趕到立法院，村民日後是否能事先安排外應，來個裹（裏）應外合？

有村民表示晚上散去，是因為家太遠，再不回家就太累了。按此言，村民如能就近租時鐘酒店，也能方便長期抗爭。村民會否考慮籌款？當然要留意籌款過程不會被其他組織騎劫，並仔細列明捐款用途，免去爭議。

Examination on movements. There were not much people in Legco, only some one hundred. The initial number of protesters and mobility are too weak.

Anti-CSSTA movement in Taiwan: 300 students broke into the Legislative Yuan, 6 times than 50; mobility is weak too: most of those Taiwan students are experienced in social movements, but villagers have nothing to rely on - that's a prenatal disaster. But can be tackled post-natally, right? There are a lot of gimmick but not enough follow-up action. They should think on numbers and mobility of protesters. Should they call for at least 300 people to start rushing in Legco? It was out of a sudden today (6th June). Many villager-supporters are receiving messages later, so they spent an hour or two to the legislature. Can they have a stronger inter-connection between inside and outside?

Some villagers said they have to leave at night because their homes are too far away, and they will be exhausted by then. If so, if they can rent a hotel room around Legco, and they can facilitate long term movement. Will they consider raising money? But make sure it would not be hijacked by other bodies, and the usages of those money should be clearly listed, so as to avoid further conflicts.

Mayfly: What I Learned in the TST Counter-Vigil

What I learned in the TST Counter-Vigil

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 蜉蝣 (Mayfly)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-05-2014/15928 



June 4th, 2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the June 4 Tiananmen massacre. 7000 citizens turned their backs on the annual candlelight vigil held in Victoria Park and remembered the tragedy in front of “The Freedom Fighter” sculpture outside of the Hong Kong Cultural Centre in Tsim Sha Tsui instead.

Those 7000 people voted with their feet by giving Civic Passion, organizer of the Tsim Sha Tsui commemoration, a chance. Their action sent a clear message: the usual candlelight vigil organized by the Hong Kong Alliance In Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China has become more of a routine than anything; worse still, it serves as a convenient venue for the pan-democrats’ fundraising gig and vote-soliciting campaign.

During the 2-hour service, I witnessed the face of passion and of endurance of native Hong Kongers. Standing among the crowd, I was totally in sync with the frustration and the indignation of my fellow citizens. 

More than a decade has passed since the handover, and the people of Hong Kong are yet to enjoy full democracy. But the Beijing never tire of testing our limits. From Article 23 proposal, to the multi-entry permits bringing in even more visitors from across the border, to the implementation of brain-washing national education curriculum, there all point to the rapid fall of the city’s governance to Beijing’s control.

We have seen government policies called off because of public backlash. But our SAR puppet government couldn’t care less however strong the opposition. More bills selling out Hong Kong’s interests will continue to be passed, and Hong Kongers remain powerless.

Pan-democratic lawmakers used to be our gatekeepers against all these. These days, they are the quickest to sell us out. We only have ourselves to count on.

25 years ago today, the Chinese Communist government violently suppressed peaceful protests, killing and injuring a great number of innocent lives. Ever since the tragedy, Hong Kong people commemorate the victims year after year. We even bow down to the murderous communist regime and beg for it to vindicate the June 4 pro-democracy movement.

The fact that we are being ruled by murderers are dreadful enough.

 More than one billion Chinese people are living under an authoritarian and totalitarian regime that would do anything in the expense of its people. Homes are forcibly demolished to make way for property development. State officials blatantly lie about the human right situation in China to save face. Peaceful demonstrations were defamed as rebellion and innocent students and civilians were killed off to stabilize the Party’s rule. One can never say enough about the sins of the Chinese Communist Party.

Today, 25 years have passed. Stop being sitting ducks to the suppressor. Today, we are obliged to alert those around us, that we only have ourselves to count on to save Hong Kong from doom. Today, we demand the fall of the Communist Party. True, we can have a ton of reasons for inaction and for fear, but success starts with a little step ahead. Let us each take this one step towards protecting Hong Kong. Gathering here at Tsim Sha Tsui on June 4 is our very first step. Never say we can’t change anything. Never say it’s impossible. It'll only be impossible if we don’t act.

Wing: It's For Your Own Good!

It's For Your Own Good!

Translated by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/05-31-2014/15734 



Gay rights have been standing up among social issues of the world in recent years. The discussions over the topic have been vigorous.

Some parents indicated that they themselves will suffer from emotional setbacks and therefore will aim to "cure" their children by all means if they find out their children being gays or lesbians. These parents are to shift their children’s sexual orientation back to “normal” by pull and push strategies --- not only do they insist on dissent of homosexual issues and impede homosexual behaviours, but they also encourage dates with opposite-sex and introduce counselling programs to their children.

The concept of “an ideal son/ daughter” has been established in certain parents’ minds, in which the path of being an ideal person is somehow stereotyped as follow: Being on the top of the grade academically and personally started from primary school, becoming a straight A student in the public examinations, having the opportunity to study in the University of Hong Kong, working as a professional in the leading enterprise of the field after graduation, finding an equally outstanding partner and finally making one’s parents happily-ever-after grandparents.  

Once their children are found slightly out of track, it’s time to “right the wrong”. Look at the examples down there.

You decided to be a scaffold worker? Sure not! You should continue studying and be a professional. 

You want to marry this guy? Never! How can you even be with this guy? He has got a disfigured face!

You are gay? Absolutely not! This is not accepted by the world. Others will look down on you! And you won’t be able to carry on our family name by having babies! 

“I say so and do so just for your own good, dear. Your life will be smooth in this way.” It is the most hateful behaviour when love is used as a shield of unreasonable intervention. Gratitude of love and care throughout the years act as a conflict forcing us not to say “No” to parents’ orders and “friendly” arrangements.

So parents: You should know that your understanding and support mean a lot to children. Even it’s a smile of comfort, it has the capacity to provide more than enough energy for your children to fight against the sarcasm and discrimination in the society.

Read this story: There was a teenager who chose not to continue his study in grammar school, but rather work as a scaffold worker. While he was working, a nobody housewife passing by with her child, “Look, those are for people who can’t do.” But when this frustrated and tired teenager came home, his mother said, “Dear, let’s drink up the soup. It’s too hot out there in the day. You’ll need this.” 

Think about this: Who cares what did that the mean housewife say? It just doesn’t matter anymore. 

Some parents blindly hope that their children’s lives to be smooth. And the definition of “smooth” is by what they’ve already had in their minds of “ideal children”. They focus on their own expectations but ignore what their children truly want. They presume that everyone would like to work in offices and nobody would not take excellence as the criteria of a life partner. Worse still, they don’t see that parents’ bigoted attitude is the biggest obstacle of children’s lives, much more powerful than the combined voices of dis-encouragement in the society.