Passiontimes: Christians Have Spoken: "Paul Kwong Does NOT Speak for Me!"

Christians Have Spoken: "Paul Kwong Does NOT Speak for Me!"

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 熱血編輯部 (Passion Times Editorial Team)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-08-2014/17606

Archbishop Paul Kwong's recent comment against the July 1 protesters has sparked storm of revulsion among Christians and non-believers. Some Christians have opened a Facebook page titled "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me", declaring that the opinion of the Archbishop of Hong Kong Anglican Church has nothing to do with them.

Kwong, who has always been conservative, was appointed a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (China's political advisory body) in 2013. In an interview at the time, Kwong openly opposed to using civil disobedience to achieve universal suffrage in 2017. "Universal suffrage is not a panacea," Kwong said, "but it has been idealised too much."

Many who have participated in the July 1 march only did so to get abroad the bandwagon," Kwong said in a recent sermon.some students' complaint of "having no food and water for hours" and "long queues for the bathroom", Kwong mocked the young protesters and said, "Why don't bring along your maids next time?" Kwong told Christians to ask themselves "What Would Jesus Do", but his version of Jesus was a "gentle and humble" man who uttered not a word when He was brought before Pilate, like a lamb waiting to be slaughtered.

Kwong's comment stirred up resentment among the Christian community after it was widely reported by local medias. Passion Times' author Do Chan condemned Kwong as a false prophet.

A Facebook page "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me" was opened this morning, listing out Kwong's past controversies, one example being his comment "universal suffrage is not a cure-all".

[Translator note: As of writing, the page has recorded over 1000 Likes.]

Link to "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me" page:
https://www.facebook.com/pKwongnotme

Do Chan: Paul Kwong - a Living Example of a False Prophet

Paul Kwong - a Living Example of a False Prophet

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 陳到 (Do Chan)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-08-2014/17597

Archbishop Paul Kwong of Hong Kong Anglican Church (aka Sheng Kung Hui) gave a sermon at St. Paul's Church on 6th July, which was also a Confirmation celebration and theological education Sunday.

In honour of the tradition where the bishop blesses the baptised to follow the example of Jesus Christ in the Confirmation celebration, Kwong mentioned more than once that Christians should always ask themselves, "What Would Jesus Do?" (WWJD). But on what Jesus would do in the face of Hong Kong's current political climate, he took a firm stand, "I do not believe Jesus would have thrown objects in LegCo, nor would He have berated the government officials, nor would He have used irrational and violent means to express Himself."

Kwong continued to claim that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels was very "consistent": Jesus was "gentle and humbled" when He was condemned before Pilate, silent like a lamb waiting to be slaughtered. Those who came out to protest had "no peace within, nor do they have the wisdom to think straight," Kwong argued, "that's why you see so much irrational responses, some are even worried that they will no longer be allowed to protest next year." The greatest bullsh*t of all was when he taunted those arrested after July 1 overnight sit-in to "bring along their maids". The way I would like to respond to his sermon is that the Archbishop just demonstrated how to be a false prophet.

False prophets preach "the other gospels"

Kwong said Christians should always ask themselves what Jesus would do, but he himself has little knowledge of the Jesus as the Bible records. "Jesus Cleanses of the Temple" is a story well-known even to non-believers. And what He did was in no way close to being "gentle"; Has Jesus ever berated anyone? The Bible has records of Jesus looking at those who were spying on Him in anger, Jesus rebuking His disciples, and Jesus publicly berating the Pharisees and Sadducees as "brood of vipers". Jesus would be the last person to be gentle when injustice is before Him. Kwong's depiction of Jesus as a man of little words is a shameless distortion of the Lord's image into one that fits his own pro-government leaning. Such a person is no man of God. Kwong must confess his sins and repent, otherwise may he never ascend into Heaven no matter how tall his bishop's mitre is.

False prophets heralds "false peace"

First let's take a look at passage in scripture (Ezekiel 13:8-16):

"Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: ... My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. ... Because they lead my people astray, saying, 'Peace,' when there is no peace, ... The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace,  declares the Sovereign LORD."

The scripture passage mentions those false prophets who misled others by saying, "Peace," when there was no peace. Kwong's sermon was a perfect example of false prophecy. He spoke of how Hong Kong is beset by a host of problems, but what he did was teach his parishioners to have peace, and slander the protesters as having no peace within. This is not and never will be the teaching of the Holy Scripture. The Bible does not instruct people to be ostriches that profess "spiritual victories" but are ignorant of the dangers of the outside world. The Bible has always been a book of truth. The role of a prophet is to warn people of the consequences of sins, and that people should turn away from their sins and do what pleases God. Calling upon Christians to be "gentle and humble" when facing serious issues is essentially telling Christians to keep their mouths shut and stay away from politics and from the truth. But with China trampling on all aspects of the city's life, it's only natural for Hongkongers to cry for help, and to fight back in self defence. But Kwong, on the other hand, brush people off and says, "Suck it up, it'll all end soon." A pastor like this, even one is too many for our own good.

Towards the end of his sermon, Kwong reverberated, "We as Christians should follow the example of Christ, so that people see that we are different," stressing that Christians should remain silent like the meek and gentle Jesus he had depicted.

I agree in all certainty that Christians should follow Christ's example to become like Jesus, so that people see that we are different, which is just the reason why we should follow His steps to stand up against injustice and sacrifice for the greater good.

[Translator note: Paul Kwong was appointed as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, China's political advisory body, in 2013.] 

Favabean: "New Immigrants Are Hongkongers Too?"

"New Immigrants Are Hongkongers Too?"

Translated by Jonathan Ip, Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by Fava Bean
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2013/12/19/57439 

(Photo: Jacky HT Lim)

“The new immigrants are equally Hongkongers also, why must we distinguish new immigrants and non-new immigrants for everything?” This is exactly the crux of the debate over the new immigrants’ qualification to obtain CSSA upon their 1-year arrival – the issue of Hongkongers’ ethnic identity. What matters is neither economic costs, social contribution, potential consequences nor the number of years the new immigrants have stayed here. I will try to articulate why the HK Government has the moral obligation to give priority to the interests of the “Original Hongkongers” (whose parents are Hongkongers and who are are born in HK; well, I [Fava Bean] ain't though), and why it is a supererogation, instead of a moral obligation, to offer new immigrants welfare.

1. Define “What are Hongkongers”: what we call “group” is by its definition exclusive. It does not mean to unreasonably being hostile to newcomers from outside, nor does it mean to reject the newcomers from outside to be assimilated and to be parts of that group. It means that when a newcomer who has not been assimilated yet is so fresh, most of the members of the group would realize that this newcomer does not share the common characteristics found among the members. Putting it simply, it means coteries in social relations. As to the criteria defining the membership of a group, of course it is decided by the original members. This is not populism, but manipulating this exclusive character to blindly attack newcomers is. If there is someone, in the name of morality, defines the ethnic identity for all the people without paying regard to the majority opinion, this person is crossing the line by wrongly doing the task for the rest of the group.

Supposedly immigrants should be able to blend themselves into the local community, and the reason why they find it so hard to do so is due to the absence of the approval authority in the government's hands and insufficient support for the new immigrants. Even though they have committed no wrong, you can’t force Hongkongers to accept that they are locals too just because they have done nothing wrong. Such forced acceptance will only reinforce Hongkongers’ antipathy toward the newcomers.

Welfare, by its definition, is reserved for the members of a group only. Assume that the Engineering Society is distributing welfare packs to Nursing students, neglecting the fact that quite a few members of the Society cannot get the packs, the Society is definitely going to be blamed. Groups, of course, may distribute resources for outsiders, but that is charity, not welfare.

* Although I do not support to allow the new immigrants to obtain welfare, I agree that the government should put more money in facilitating the new immigrants to blend into the local community.

The Hong Kong Government’s moral obligation toward “Original Hongkongers”: a child born in Hong Kong, indeed has never chosen to be here; his or her parents did not have a choice too, unless they had the bucks to give birth to him or her in other countries. The HK Governments actually has the moral obligation to take care of their misfortune. But a new immigrant chooses to come here by himself or herself, and the parents of an anchor baby (Editor's note: 雙非兒童) chose to give birth here in HK by themselves as well. Adults should be responsible for their own choices, and the new immigrants should have planned their lives and finance before they migrated, as it is very irresponsible to make other pay for their bad planning. Admittedly, if the new immigrants suffer from difficult livelihood, the government should, on a humanitarian basis offer assistance – the Social Welfare Department used to have the discretion to offer CSSA to new immigrants who have not been here for 7 years.

However, I must emphasise that such assistance is only based on humanitarian concern instead of any moral obligation. Legalising such supererogation and make all the Hongkongers to pay for such supererogation is undoubtedly being generous at others’ expenses.

*Therefore I support new immigrants under the age of 18 to get financial assistance unreservedly, as they did not have a choice to come to HK.

Some say that “family reunification” is a fundamental human right, but to what I have learned, the mainland government does not restrict Hongkongers from immigrating into China, so that the HK-China families can choose to reunify in Hong Kong or in mainland. As stated above, adults should be responsible for their choices, and I will not repeat again here.

But, well, according to Cosmopolitanism, the right of family reunification is outweighed by the right of survival of obtaining food and water, indeed the government should really cancel all welfare which has nothing to do with survival, and donate the saved resources to those starving people (Alright I am joking).

After all, the two most important issues are still to get back the approval authority and reinforce support to the new immigrants. As they have been explained by so many people, I would save my breath here.

Wing: Understanding "LGBT" - Chapter Gay

Understanding "LGBT" - Chapter Gay

Translated by Choi Siu-wa, Edited by Karen L., Written by Wing
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-26-2014/16902

This time it is Gay’s turn in the series of "LGBT" after the previous brief introduction about Lesbian.

In medical terms, gay and lesbian are described as homosexual. The word "gay" originally means "happy" but it is no longer used to mean "happy" in modern daily life.

It has to be traced back to the 19th century at least (or even earlier) that the word "gay" acquired a meaning connected to sex. Male and female prostitutes were called "gay" for their bright-colored and beautiful clothing in the Victorian Britain. Later, "gay boys" became the form of address of all male homosexuals.

In the United States, the word "gay" may be derived from the hobo community. A young hobo, also called "a gay cat" or "a geycat", usually had to be on friendly terms with another elder and experienced hobo to get a chance to learn and live. As sexual relationship is part of it, "gay cat" turned to the meaning of "young homosexual". The insiders of homosexuals did not start to use this form of address until the WWII.

The word "gay" has commonly been used to address male homosexual since the rise of the Gay Liberation Movement in 1970 and it is also a form of address that the insiders accept. You cannot say "he is a gay" which is a common wrong use as the word "gay" is an adjective. The right way to say should be "he is gay", meaning "he is a homosexual". However, we should be aware that "gay" and "homosexual" are the most common uses. Although it is easy to list 10 or even more words about homosexual in American spoken language, only "gay" and "homosexual" do not carry a tone of vilification, and that is the reason why the mass widely accept these two words.

Tracing it back in history, there are a great deal of records of male homosexuals in ancient Eastern and Western culture, such as the marriage of Athenian Pausanias and the tragedian Agathon in the Classical Greece period, Long Yang Jun in the Chinese Warring States period, the relationship between the Emperor Ai of Han and Dong Xian in the Chinese Han Dynasty, etc. Thus we can see that male homosexuality has existed since in ancient times.

It is not hard to discover the dark side when we are tracing events in our history. Homosexuals received rather serious persecutions during the past thousands of years, and there were still large scale persecutions even in the early modern period. During the Nazi period in Germany, homosexuality prohibition has became one of the targets in the Nazi party platform since Hitler’s rise to power. Both organisations of homosexuals and scholarly works of homosexuality and sexology has been banned since 1933. Homosexuals in the Nazi party were killed.

According to estimates, there were 1.2 million open male homosexuals in Germany in 1928. From 1933 to 1945, about 100,000 males were registered as homosexuals by the police, and around half of them were convicted. Most of them were put in normal prisons, but 5,000 to 15,000 people were estimated to be imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. There is no clear number of deaths at the current moment but Ruediger Lautman, a well-known scholar, estimates that the death rate of homosexuals imprisoned in concentration camps was up to 60%. The homosexuals in prisons were treated cruelly by the arresters and were also persecuted by the other prisoners. This awful incident of persecution was neither recorded nor narrated in history books.

After persecutions for so many years and decades of affirmative movements, the mass has already accepted the existence of male homosexuals. However, the public in Hong Kong has considerable misconceptions towards our gay friends because Hong Kong people did not try to understand and were misled by TV series. It sometimes causes them to offend the homosexuals without any notice. "A man who wears an earring in his left ear is cool but in his right ear is gay," a saying within Hong Kong's community. This saying shows the misconception the public has because there is no such saying in the homosexuals' community.

Some may say, "all the gays are sissy. That’s what the TVB series shows us!" [Translator's note: TVB is a free-to-air TV broadcasters in Hong Kong] In fact, you cannot judge whether a pair of handsome guys is gay just by watching them in the street if they are not having intimate behaviour. The others may say, "many gays are actually very cool!" But I can say that not everyone is cool, at least for my gay friends.

"How do you differentiate the male and female role in a gay relationship?" The roles in homosexual may vary and it is not a simple black-and-white matter. It is not appropriate to explain a same-sex relationship with a male-and-female mode. For example, some couples' relationship is about care-taking and care-receiving. In their jargon, it is "an elder brother" and "a younger brother" respectively. Although it is common to see this kind of mode, it is fairly flexible that sometimes they exchange their role. Besides, a considerable amount of homosexual couples opts for the "equal" mode. They do not like the difference of role but the feeling of equal. Mutual respect is important in a relationship. People should be treated equally regardless of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Of course there are still many other different misconceptions that is too much to be listed here. The only way to shift it right relies on the mass's initiative to care about the gay friends around them and to avoid being misled by TV series and magazines.

In the end, I would like to recommend you a video about how a stranger hugs a gay person, which is really touching one. By and large, homosexuals are just normal people like everybody else.

(Photo: Passion Times)

Sze Lai-shan: "What Contributions Have You Hongkongers Made?"

Sze Lai-shan: "What Contributions Have You Hongkongers Made?"

Translated by Choi Siu-wa, Written by Editorial Team of Passion Times
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-05-2014/17539

Today, the Hong Kong Politikos Quest Championship held the “Looking at Hong Kong’s Immigration Policies from the One-way Permit Scheme” forum in the University of Hong Kong (HKU). Raymond Wong Yuk-man, a member of the Legislative Council; Roy Tam, the convenor of the Population Policy Concern Group; Sze Lai-shan, a committee member of Society for Community Organisation (SoCO), and Paul Yip, a professor of Social Work and Social Administration of HKU attended the forum as guest speakers. Ms Sze, who took part in helping new immigrants to reverse the judgment of seven-year residency requirement for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) benefits, made an astonishing comment in the forum that asking Hongkongers to reflect on what contributions they have made to the society before blaming new immigrants.

Sze restated SoCO’s standpoint in the forum: fighting for the revocation of all the residency requirement for CSSA benefits and requesting the government to legislate against new immigrants discrimination. Besides, Sze responded to a member of the public that new immigrants filled most of the junior vacancies in Hong Kong when the person questioned whether new immigrants of family reunification made any contributions to the society’s economy. She claimed that most of the new immigrants are self-reliant, and SoCO has been helping them integrate into the society of Hong Kong. She further added that Hongkongers should ask themselves that what contributions they have made to the society instead, and should not always aim their spears at new immigrants. “Many people frequently question what exactly do the new immigrants do for Hong Kong. And I, would like to ask what do you Hongkongers think you’ve done for your city? And what do you mean by “contributions”? Don’t tell me that holding a degree will be counted as a contribution to the society! Fine, forget about the contributions then. Most of you said that you are not on welfare. But, what about public housing? Tell me, how many of you Hongkongers are not living in public housing estates?" she said. Her speech caused a commotion among the audience.

Mr Tam rebutted Sze’s opinion later, pointing out that many countries have financial means test for new immigrants of family reunification, and only those who are able to be self-reliant are permitted to immigrate. But it does not mean only the rich are qualified to immigrate.

(Photo: Passion Times)

陶傑英文專欄︰中國夢的黑暗一角

中國夢的黑暗一角

Translated by Tracy F. and Karen L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 陶傑 (Chip Tsao)
Original: http://hk-magazine.com/city-living/column/dark-corner-beyond-china-dream 

   (Source: ET Net [left] and Apple Daily [right])

北京對香港的自由默唸緊箍咒，一聲令下，以後在港任職的法官均要謹遵「愛國」原則判案。

根據北京公布的白皮書，香港的各級法官均隸屬行政機關，統統都是「官」。白皮書固然偏離司法獨立的精神，還意圖毀掉數百位法官的前途。不少在港任職的外籍法官是從英國及澳洲等地而來的，面對白皮書的「愛國」命令又豈能自處？再說，但凡英式法庭傳統的假髮也好，法袍也好，總之落在「愛國」中國人的眼中，一律不是什麼順眼之物。

北京一向看不過眼那群存於香港司法制度下的「白皮異種」和一個個受普通法洗腦的「黃皮走狗」。2012年，教授程潔在清華大學法學院舉辦的公開論壇更揚言，香港法官應具有中國國籍，甚至只能由華裔人士擔任。刻下頒令的白皮書白紙黑字列明法官必須「愛國」，提醒「愛國」要求絕非突發，而是早早訂立的。鬼佬法官還想保住飯碗？僅僅愛到鯉魚門吃蒸魚，這種愛太薄弱，唯有判案時充分顯示出自己夠「愛國」，這才能滿足北京。

這樣說來，近期為數不少的案件都應重審。前廉政專員湯顯明的受賄案必然也在名單之上。愛國湯任內出訪內地期間，與大陸官員交流民族感情，獲贈送一箱又一箱貴價茅台和禮品。可憐的湯一心想獨享祖國的愛，不向港府通報，卻被誣指為貪污。一群「非愛國者」以反貪腐為名，迫害「愛國者」，究竟憑什麼？憑在反中殖民時期起草的法例嗎？說到底，這種「愛」還不得光明正大之名。

至於「中央實質任命」的前政務司司長許仕仁，「愛國之心」實無容置疑。許涉嫌勾結地產財團，犯下的「世紀巨貪案」現正開審。九人陪審團的隨機遴選，猶如六合彩，如何保障其「愛國素質」呢？中國至今尚未表明對許仕仁事件的立場，陪審團也不知該擺什麼立場來實踐「愛國」的判決。要是按中央那套來審，更是模凌兩可，舉薄熙來一案即顯而易見，「愛國者」一不是「無罪」，就是「叛國」，極端得很。白皮書一出籠，不只意味要盡快用普通話審案，更代表要馬上諮詢北京對這宗「世紀巨貪案」的看法，好下判決。中國夢藍圖缺失的一角就靠梁振英來填補了。

Hung Ho-fung: HK's fight against white paper preludes much greater war on Chinese imperialism

Hong Kong's fight against white paper preludes much greater war on Chinese imperialism

Translated by Vivian L., Written by 孔誥烽 (Hung Ho-fung)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-27-2014/16860 

Beijing's white paper officially denounced the end of the one country, two system policy. Widely regarded as the main author and mastermind of the Hong Kong white paper, Jiang Shigong, Peking University Law School Professor, is recently on the hype among China's state media such as People's Daily where he explained Beijing's thoughts behind the white paper in interviews. In one interview, Jiang went so far as to state as fact that the Basic Law came from China's constitution, not from the formally signed Sino-British Joint Declaration. Such statement is a total disregard of the treaty made between two heads of governments, essentially writing the city's constitution off as a trifling matter one can doodle as one pleases.

Who is the author of the white paper?

Who is Jiang Shigong? What is his philosophy regarding Hong Kong affairs? And what does that have to say about Beijing? To put it simply, Jiang's philosophy is a hybrid of extreme-right fascism and extreme-left Maoism of this age. His work in political theorising and in shaping of the public discourse is pivotal in Bejing's quest for a modern imperialistic China. The law professor had penned his philosophies into his book titled "Hong Kong China: Political and Cultural Perspective" (Hong Kong Oxford University Press, 2008).

Chan Koon-chung, a liberal China-loyalist, and Wan Chin, a principal proponent of the Hong Kong City-State Autonomy Movement, have both systemically critiqued Jiang's book from their respective standpoints. But their criticism had gone on without causing a ripple in the public intellectual sphere.

Relentlessly criticised the American imperialism and neoliberalism as a means to defend PRC's party-state capitalism since 1990s, the Chinese New Lefts had grown ever more radical, advocated assimilation of right-wing nationalist beliefs such as Marxism, Maoism and Neo-Confucianism, and the assertion of Leo Strauss and Nazi legal theoretician Carl Schmitt. Jiang Shigong is among those in the new left intellectual community. He served as a conduit for the Schmitt philosophy and the Nazi science of law into Chinese politics: The primary of role of politics is to draw a distinction between friend and enemy, and to defend sovereignty by being in a continual state of emergency.  The rule of law and the parliamentary system are just an unnecessary hindrance.

Jiang was appointed researcher in Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong from 2004 to 2007, a position that he took advantage of to expand his network locally. Many so-called pro-democracy scholars have had a few luncheons with, and pulled a few strings for their friend from the north. During his term in the liaison office, Jiang published a series of articles in a Beijing journal detailing his views on the Hong Kong problem, the revival of Confucianism and a new Chinese empire in the making. These articles paved the way for the writing of his book. Although Jiang's opinions did not particularly stand out among the new left, the notable positions he held in Peking University law school and the liaison office had made him an exemplar of a new left who managed to work his way up in the party-state hierarchy.

The promise of "One Country, Two Systems" could ensure the successful handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Jiang asserted. But since the handover, such a promise has become superfluous. The notion of "One Country, Two Systems" did not offer much help to Beijing as China sought to tackle the most challenging conundrum to its sovereignty over the city—the question of Hong Kong people's national identity. Jiang held that the solution called upon politics and ideology, rather than the law. Beijing must think outside the one-country-two-system box, and use direct political and ideological intervention to turn Hongkongers into patriotic Chinese. Otherwise, China's sovereignty over Hong Kong would exist in name only.

"One Country, Two Systems": an ad hoc promise to shun opposition of "returning to China"

From Jiang's point of view, most Hongkongers, who have familial roots in mainland China, have the heart of patriot that may have been buried deep down (Hong Kong, China, pp. 142-5). Thus, Beijing's first priority is to help Hong Kong's ethnic Chinese to discover their true hearts. Jiang claimed that the British colonial government was good at "brainwashing and winning people's hearts", one tactic that Beijing should follow. Particular attention should be drawn to how Jiang had translated "winning hearts and minds" into Chinese as literally "brainwashing and winning hearts", changing the nuance of a concept universally acknowledged (ibid., p. 31). Beijing must implement ideological work in Hong Kong and at the same time wipe out any local identity, Jiang implied. In hindsight, Beijing's agenda on Hong Kong—the 'patriotic' national education, teaching Chinese language in Putonghua, etc.—closely echoed Jiang's judgement and recommendations.

Jiang argued that Hong Kong's "One Country, Two Systems", modelled after the 1951 seventeen-point agreement between Tibet and Beijing, not only catalysed the handover, it also signified the comeback of the Chinese imperial epoch (ibid., pp. 123-58). The prosperity of the Chinese empire during the Qing dynasty was built upon a Confucian culture that radiated outward and unified surrounding regions, all the while maintaining the empire at the very centre. When a newly acquired territory has a marked culture and a self-governing leader, the Qing emperor would allow the local elites to exercise partial autonomy for a while—until its culture is assimilated and its autonomy confiscated. At this point, the empire would expand even further and acquire more new territories, repeating the same assimilation process. Now that The People's Republic of China has resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong and that it has eye on Taiwan are both signs pointing to China's bid to rekindle the imperialistic expansion in the 21st century. Jiang's intentions are obvious: Hong Kong's "One Country, Two Systems" was merely a ploy and a transitional plan. When the time comes, Hong Kong would be reconstructed into the post-1959 Tibet—forced to be assimilated with PRC and be ruled under Beijing's suffocating rule. When assimilation is over, Beijing is safe to resume its conquest for new lands.

Connecting Jiang's theory on Hong Kong, his ideals for the "celestial empire", with Beijing's white paper, we can get a glimpse into China's plan for Hong Kong: the first step of its quest towards the rebirth of a celestial empire.  In exercising comprehensive control over Hong Kong, China shows the world that it has the power to deter intervention from the United States and to deliberately taunt Britain—the cosignatory of the Joint Declaration—as lacking in courage and competence. Once established, Beijing's comprehensive control over Hong Kong will sound a warning to Taiwan and other countries around Asia. On that note, Hongkongers' fight against Beijing's white paper is not merely a dispute over domestic affairs, but a prelude to a much greater war of Asia and the rest of the world against the reincarnation of the Chinese Celestial Empire.

Pan Lei: Who is at loggerheads with Christians?

Who is at loggerheads with Christians?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L. and Kristeeq, Written by Pan Lei 

Original: http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/chinpang/post/1328292959 

It can be lonely for one to be a Christian in this day and age: on social occasions, religion is definitely not a comfortable topic (especially in front of nonbelievers); in the mainstream media, we usually see more negative rather than positive news about Christians, and some Christians might even think the media is hostile towards them. And what is more, we, as Christians, have to bear all those brunt, including ridiculing of some of our habits and thoughts as well as doubts about our faith. How should we react in this seemingly hostile society?

Two months ago, I wrote an article, entitled If Christians Don't Know How to Respect in Macau Times, which was then reposted in The News Lens, a Taiwan website with lots of discussion threads. Among the comments, most seemed to agree that there is a lack of respect from Christians towards other cultures and religions, echoing their vigorous dislike upon Christianity. Several viral videos online were cited as examples: a preacher "dismembered" a Kuan-yin (Goddess of Mercy) statue; some Christians damaged several Buddhist ritual implements and a pastor asked God to help a sister to recover her hymen.

For a long time, I have realised that Christianity is not respected in the modern world, but still I am shocked by people's intense hatred of the belief system. Indeed, Taiwan is a specific context of this topic and does not represent an isolated incident. General emotional resistance towards certain Christians' behaviour and reasoning is appearent among the community. Viewing this phenomenon from a delusional perspective, some Christians feel "persecuted", some choose to pass the buck to the "evil spirits", and some even state this reaction as demonstration of "decline of moral values". No matter what there are always some people to propose such an opinion: "This is an epoch in which Christians face hostility everywhere. To step back and comprise are not options, instead we should persevere against adversity and stand firm!"

I wonder how there are so many people intent on "persecuting Christians". In Discussions on The Society for Truth and Light written by Daniel Cheung Kwok-tung, an epistemologist studying religion-related topics, what attracts me most are not the analyses nor the criticisms on The Society for Truth and Light (STT, a fundamentalist Christian organisation against homosexual marriage), but the related discussions of evangelicalism inside, a conservative Protestant movement founded in American, of which it was generated by some believers' presumption of themselves living in a hostile society.

Back in the 1960s, the era of civil movements, there was a "de-religionisation" trend in the States: for the sake of religion neutrality, praying was banned in public schools. Instead, the "evolutionism" entered the curriculum, and abortion was legalised by the society. It struck the nerve of many believers, who then claimed themselves as the "Moral Majority", and aimed to "Take America Back for God". In order to strengthen its influence, they led the movement's development to another level – to be allied with the Republicans, the conservative power in the political field. Some evangelical pastors opposed environmental protection policies for Bush's government, and some extreme believers even launched demonstration at the funeral of soldiers who had been serving in Iraq, because they had faith that God was punishing the morally degenerate country.

These kind of Christians conceive that society is brewing a "cultural war", attempting to persecute Christians in the name of "political correctness" by all means. They believe that those "extreme liberalists" are in line with mainstream media, so as to make Christians desperate.

But are their thoughts the truth? Doesn't what they deduce follow a practice of retrocausality? The case might not be people using Christians' kinds of ideologies (such as human rights, freedom, multi-culturalism, rational thinking...)as weapons to "strike" Christians. In other words, Christianity isn't the object of attack to the general public, but rather certain behaviours by people as Christians. It's not personal but is being judged on its own merits. It's possibly the time for certain Christians to let go of the impulsive "counter-attack" and with open-mindedness, to think about why the world has changed, to see if non-Christian's thoughts are reasonable in some way. And how should the communication between Christians and non-Christians proceed.

Satan might not be the enemy who criticised you, but rather your own mind, like delusional disorder or paranoia. On the contrary, people who criticised you might be angels bringing a space of self-reflection. In today's society, if you, as a Christian, feel alone and not understood by others, what you have to do isn't to immediately start a war against those "imaginary enemies". You, and us too if it suits our descriptions, should sit down and reflect upon ourselves. The lesson is to learn the way to respect and to communicate with the world in a better way.

(Macau Times, May 2014)

Lewis: The Bible-bashers’ Fear of Democracy

The Bible-bashers' fear of democracy

Translated by Vivian L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 盧斯達 (Lewis Loud)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-25-2014/16824 

                                                                               (Execution of Marie Antoinette)

Outspoken Christian celebrity Zac Koo Ho-ching (translator's note: Zac Koo is often dubbed "Bishop Koo" by netizens for his tireless but often wrong public preaching of the Christ faith) recently "reposted" a post on Facebook. Annoyingly spiritual as it could possibly be, there was in fact a passage worthy of pondering upon:

"We must understand that 'democracy' is not the absolute truth. A society where people are masters more often than not steers men away from God and into a road to vanity and pride."

Bible bashers like Zac Koo are hostile towards the notion of "people as masters".  Though not the value of modern western societies, such an attitude has its root as far back as 1789. Like the Neo-Confucian in Song Dynasty where there had been debates on "nature's principles and human desires", Christianity had had a similar spiritual ideal of God's power ruling over men's desires.

At the time of the French Revolution (1789-1799), old ideas were overthrown under the mantra of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", thus followed were the rise of democracies and the spread of nationalism globally, setting the theme of the whole 19th century. Democrats and socialists were both among the proponents of The French Revolution. Meanwhile, scholars and critics offered fierce opposition to the Revolution. They reasoned that not only did the Revolution cause massive fatalities, when ordinary people were to become masters, the consequences could also be unfathomable: nationalists would trample the divine right of the monarchy, and populism would pervert the Constitution and subvert the empire. To those in the opposition, the massive destruction during the Revolution was living proof of the indulgence of human desires and corruption of morality.

The idea that "democracy is not the absolute truth", and that democracy steers the commoners into "a road to vanity and pride" are not an invention by bible bashers in this day and age, but of the political conservatism that came back to power after 1789. Only one year after the Revolution broke out, Irish politician Edmund Burke penned and published his conservatism classic Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke fiercely attacked the Revolution by prophesying that France would fall under a Reign of Terror. Burke wrote:

Law overturned; tribunals subverted; industry without vigour; commerce expiring; the revenue unpaid, yet the people impoverished, a church pillaged, and a state not relieved; civil and military anarchy made the constitution of the kingdom; every thing human and divine sacrificed to the idol of public credit.

Those who are under heavy influence of the traditions of humanism since the Renaissance would think that men are rational, a trait that is of great value to humanity. A learned man would progress and gain wisdom, and would in turn act for the good of himself and others.

The pessimistic conservatives (who possibly are also bible bashers), on the other hand, would think that men's stupidity is as incurable as his original sin. Without the guidance of God, the Church and the clergy, the hegemony of humanism in their minds, would only result in anarchy and chaos just like what happened in the French Revolution. Men are all sinned. An ordinary person who boasts of being any more "rational" than his fellow men is especially sinful and defiant of God. Any decision that any "rational" man made out of self-righteousness would only bring disasters unto themselves.

Democracy is the preferred form of government over other systems because we assume that most people are rational, that they are capable of making decisions for the benefits of themselves, their community and their nation. But this is a questionable proposition. Totalitarianism rests its faith on the party and on its leaders. It sees people as decadent who makes only trouble. This is where traditional Chinese values meets Christian right extremism. These seemingly unrelated doctrines could work in synergy because they share similar ideologies. The Chinese collective subconscious places its hope on a great emperor. The commoners must pray for the king to lead the country to prosperity; while the Christian faith posits that men have a crippled soul that is inherently sinful. The sinners must be helped by God and guided by the church. Individual empowerment thus, in the eye of Conservatives, translates as the triumph of human desire, and of vanity and pride.

Be it LGBT rights or democratic revolution, it is a time when ordinary people step up to overthrow the presence who exists nowhere but who take charge in everything--the almighty "God". But bible bashers question and antagonise democracy because of Christianity's fundamental view on human nature: Men are weak and impotent. Men should lean not unto his own understanding, but believeth in the Lord with all their hearts. Such spiritual mentality in the modern world, in the political sphere especially, would breed a pack of bigoted subjects under the dominion of authoritarianism.

The fears of freedom, of individualism, and of rationality, ultimately cultivate fascism.  In Nazi Germany, there were still churches. But only that the Bible was replaced with a "Nazi Bible", which was rewritten to promote submission to authority, nation and the leaders. Bigoted Christians in today's Hong Kong fall into the arms of fascism's twin brother. They cried in fear: People to be masters of their own and elect its leaders? "Civil nomination"? How can that be? What if some anti-China hooligan is elected? What if 'Long-hair' becomes the next Chief Executive? What if the future CE has Athlete's foot? 

Therefore bible bashers would rather side with the commies. It is only natural that religion would be used as a tool to effect authoritarian rule. bible bashers love their God. But God is metaphysical. So there needs to be someone to execute God's will, someone like Xi Jinping, the Politburo and Leung Chun-ying.

In the post-imperial Europe where monarchs had been beheaded, empires had fallen and nation states had risen, Christianity was once and for all shoved out of the political arena. Deprived of a home, Christianity became a bastard child, drifting aimlessly to find its next political power to latch onto. At last, in despotic Asia, Christianity finds its new Garden of Eden. Bigoted Christians are all over Hong Kong. From Rev. Patrick So Wing-chi (note 1), to entertainer Zac Koo (note 2), to pro-Beijing hunger striker Leticia Lee (note 3), the list goes on and on... These are angels of death who herald the revival of the politics of obscurantism while Hongkongers await their doom.

[Translator's note:
1. A homophobe himself, Rev. Patrick So Wing-chi of The Yan Fuk Church had, on numerous occasions, publicly condemned the gay right law proposal that sought to protect LGBT from discrimination. Rev. So had openly endorsed a number of pro-Beijing LegCo runners and then CE candidates CY Leung.
2. A philander in his youth, Zac Koo now tirelessly preaches his fans abstinence from premarital sex and submission to authority.
3. Leticia Lee See-yin, convener of “Justice Alliance” and a self-proclaimed Christian, begun an indefinite hunger strike to protest against “radical activists” and to demand government suppression of democratic activism. ]

Gnimmm: No Holds Barred Even Cosplaying in Red Guards' Costume

No Holds Barred Even Cosplaying in Red Guards' Costume

Translated by Karen L., Edited by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Gnimmm
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/06/21/76008 

During World War II, rising Nazi in Germany had been committing crimes against humanity – the holocaust. Their costume, symbol and slogans has become taboos in Europe since the war was over. 

Facing the sin, German has made sincere apologies to the public for what they had done, insisting not to dwell with mistakes anymore and confining themselves to their moral rules. You won’t find yourself hearing any German making Nazis jokes. You won’t find portrait of Adolf Hitler hanging on the Brandenburg Gate. Distinct difference can be observed between Germany and those countries escaping from the past.

                                                                A graduation photo of some mainland Chinese graduates

It is an innocent idea of us assuming every student from mainland China was brainwashed given that their Chairman Mao’s figure is there reminding every second of the history. Those intellectuals moving from mainland China to Hong Kong acquaint the CCP’s bloodstained history as well as its achievements – the unstoppable ability to outperform most of the countries economically in 60 years, even the Great Britain in old times. The monitored Internet network combined with the shielded flow of information in mainland China is not sophisticated enough to block everything within the defensive wall. It is by no means graduates would have not known that the beloved personage Mao Zedong in their country was a ruffian and that communist party is a dreadfully extreme cult.

Some graduates in mainland China celebrated their graduation cosplaying themselves as Red Guards and class enemies in the struggle session. It’s an unlikely postulation towards their ignorance of Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square protests. Instead, a dégagé value would make more sense – let bygones be bygones. 

Pursuing the China dream, it is to know which way the wind blows. Thought of “Why so serious with the Red Guards’ outfit?” emblematise an interpretation of this dream, even if it’s a profoundly barbaric reminder to victims of the massacre. Those graduates on the photos surely do not settle in the classification of rare occurrence disrespecting the ones who suffered, but worse, their ideology as accomplices is in accord with the entire China's spirit – denying explicitly the carnage they brought.

CCP agitates patriotism, stirring waves of attacks on Japanese-based companies. The Chinese, virtually, is a exact opposite existence of rootlessness. It is to be expected that one having no ties with one's country and one without wisdom would not accept the country's attainments along with its blames, not to mention facing the history.

To them, the ten-year cultural catastrophe is the matter of their grandparents' generation; Tian'anmen Massacre is the matter of their parents' generation; today's China dominates the world in their generation, therefore what happened in the previous generations stay in the previous generations. Ancient history or today's community arouse no interest and concern in them, no matter it's Tang Dynasty's fascinating progress or the serious pollution problems nowadays.

Their national identities, even compared with Hongkongers, are vaguer. It's every man for himself in their minds, extending the western definition of individualism. This is how they are not feeling ashamed in Red Guards’ outfit. The weight of history and consciousness of the sense of shame are absent, and only money composes their lives.

That is why Chinese, if not all, aims to flee from China for a better future -- a secured livelihood and moneyhood.

Mao Zedong's Portrait hanging on Tian'anmen is an ignominious and bizarre presence to foreigners. But it's rather normal like any other decoration, no difference with a curtain on a certain wall to mainland Chinese. 

Amid Asian countries, Japanese would gnash their teeth over its nationality failures; Korean is a face-saving nationality, even sometimes it means to having unfair advantages; though the merry smile on those mainland Chinese graduates in red-star caps tells their numbness of their own land.

These must have been the "unworldly" picture of their minds:
The reflecting glory disperses as drifting clouds
Grudge comes to naught as soap bubbles
None of my business anyways
We’re men without a country

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.