Astrophel Lim: What's More Unabashed than Labour Party Help Immigrants Get CSSA?

What's More Unabashed than Labour Party Help Immigrants Get CSSA?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Astrophel Lim
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-19-2015/21844/ 

Having an anchor baby is a choice after all. [Translator's note: In Hong Kong, "anchor babies" are often referred to as "doubly non-permanent babies", indicating both their parents' lack of  permanent residence in Hong Kong, but in mainland China.] Those mainland pregnant women deliberately did so, some passing through the customs at the last minute and refusing to pay the hospital bill that comes, and there are others giving birth at the border or trying to get themselves imprisonment here.

Aiming at HKSARG welfare system, they leave no stone unturned. The worse part is that completely are they never planning on how to raise a baby, and somehow in they eyes, it becomes the government's responsibility offering CSSA to them.

Some say, the kids will have no hukou approved by the mainland China in this way. [Translator's note: "Hukou" is the household registration in China.] Well, please go back to China and fight for your rights of one. Same with those "establishing-democratic-PRC" aspiration, please leave it to your great nation.

Allowing such situation is the grey area of our current system. Some kids from mainland China have a legal guardian in Hong Kong, but still they apply for CSSA. I couldn't help but wonder then what does "guardian" stand for. Doesn't it supposed to be taking care of that kid?

Their parents insist them living in Hong Kong, and even help them find a guardian for daily life. Okay, fine. I can take this. Then isn't the current arrangement fair enough for them? [Translator's note: Current arrangement — When doubly non-permanent kids have a need to apply for CSSA, they need a guardian to do it for them, and they should live with the guardian said.]

Either Fernando Cheung quit or fail from the election, it doesn't count for anything. His problem lies on the way of thinking and the betrayal against Hongkongers. He supports the re-allocation shift from the locals to the others. Politically speaking, all of that is not a fault of one, and only a collective punishment will do.

Why? Simple enough. Even if Fernando Cheung quit his job, problems won't disappear in a flash. Many resources from the NGO are deeply linked and intertwined with LegCo seats or panels or committees. To embrace the variety of stances in issues, one and another politician within a party should be allowed to think and act differently. Only in this way can it root out the deeply planted pernicious practice and remove the links between injustice and politics.

This is why I am not calling for a boycott against, but the entire Labour Party — unless all of their major members make it clear about their stances on the new arrival issues, especially this CSSA case, or else the entire party deserve not a single vote. Honestly, who of them ever does something meaningful? Lee Cheuk-yan called for "construction of democratic China. Cyd Ho went to Shanghai for constitutional reform discussion and then wore the T-shirt "vindicate Tian'anmen Massacre". Tricks only.

Relgitsjg: OK, History Is JUST Repeating Itself

OK, History Is JUST Repeating Itself

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Uncle Relgitsjg (史兄)
Original: http://www.pentoy.hk/%E6%99%82%E4%BA%8B/r412/2015/03/19/ok-history-is-just-repeating-itself/ 

"Higher demand for Hong Kong internal resoureces will be generated if it is able to attract more users. Given the lack of talent and land, the government should import talent and turn to land reclamation." 

It happens. One solution for all. So as they think.

OK, history is JUST repeating itself:
1. It always costs over 10 billion HKD to build infrastructure X.
2. Effectiveness of infrastructure X remains dubious.
3. Be it the mainland China or Hong Kong side, the "success" of infrastructure X somehow must rely on the system's cooperation or compromise.

The 3rd runway — to build or not to build?
Thanks to the economics training back in the day, I do learn some ways of thinking from Steven N.S. Cheung. To answer this question, let me raise a simple one first.

Why bother?
Assume all the problem of flight directions or aerospace can go for good, and the runway do deliver its ability for more frequent flights as expected, then what's in it for Hong Kong?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tourists.
Tourists.
More tourists.
Flocks of tourists.

I couldn't help myself LOL while typing the above lines.

Is Hong Kong lacking tourists? Do we have any more capacity left for accommodating tourists?

The problem of Hong Kong does not lie on the demand side, but it's the domestic supply that hits a bottleneck, which has been revealed through several representative signs—

1. The unemployment rate of Hong Kong is 3.3%, almost attaining full employment. Such rate has reached the rock bottom since 1997. Vacancies of jobs in the market are desperate to be filled, especially in industries related to tourism, like catering and hotels. The situation applies also in fields such as engineering and construction. A little experience will do for job changing. If you don't buy that it's not easy to hire people, bring a friend who speaks Chinese and pay a visit to some Cha Chaan Teng to see how long the dish-washing workers and waiters have worked in there. 10 years later, it will be time for the post-WW2-baby-boomer-generation to retire. The labour force then will be expected to drop. By the time, supply will overtake demand, in a more aggressive manner;

2. Rent of shops and industrial buildings has skyrocketed. What reflects the true demand of end users (merely counting the rent might include speculation) is the vacancy rate and rent.  Do trust yourself over me. Pick a district where you are familiar with, and think, how many shops has survived since 2005. The barber's I-have-been has a no-future story. The owner, also a barber started first his practice as a disciple in a ground floor barber's in Cameron Road, and became a boss of an upstair barber's in Prat Avenue. The rent surged. He had no choice but to move to another upstair store in Hankow Road and to share the rent with other tenants. And now in return for a place for hairdressing business, he has to share the money with others. The places he used to rent has become restaurants and upstair stores;

3. Infrastructures have reached its limits. The MTR is so damn cramped; everywhere is filled with tourists even at 10 or 11pm; restaurants in tourists areas reject non-diners to use their washrooms; all scenic spots are but people — those from mainland China. Even I have a huge favour over Donald Duck, I only went to Disneyland HK for three times — free ones. Besides ugly Donald Duck souvenirs, another reason I am not willing to pay for it is fairly simple. If I were to give away few hundred dollars for special experiences such as cramping and shoving with Chinese people and having my queue cut by these barbarians, I would be nuts.

We need more tourists? No, you don't seem to find a single empty shop in the street or empty cable car in Ocean Park. And no, it's not like there is any problem of our airport's capacity or that it takes a cannot-bear long time to get on flight. C'mon! Airport expanded, then what? Will the tourists enjoy their time in such a crowded place? Cramping on an MTR train with flocks of passengers? Or return immediately after shopping in the brand name shops in the airport closed area?

Whether the High Speed Rail or 3rd runway "succeed" or not, once it's passed, we're doomed—

"Higher demand for Hong Kong internal resoureces will be generated if it is able to attract more users. Given the lack of talent and land, the government should import talent and turn to land reclamation." Some naively believe the suggestion of property development in country parks are means testing the water. What? Are you sober? Now we are talking about 141.5 billion HKD for the 3rd runway, and they just passed it in ExCo, why would they still be scared of building something else in countryside?

Be rest assured, they won't succeed for this one (the 3rd runway does have better chances to be successful, compared with the high-speed rail, like around 40% vs 0.0001% and tell you what, I am very serious about the percentage). But you see, watching it fall would not be a pleasant scene after all.

Prepare for the worst — no one uses the 3rd runway, and in this case losses are expected. In order to cover the costs, or at least suffer less, Hong Kong might have to sacrifice some of its aerospace, or allow China to have "co-location arrangement" in Hong Kong regarding the high speed rail [Translator's note: by "co-location", China might exercise its control in Hong Kong]. If it fails, the bad side will only go further — they gain more excuses to import "talents" or implement land reclamation with the idiotic hope to achieve "supply creates demand".

These white elephants — cost overruns of one and another infrastructure projects will eat up our 700 billion fiscal reserve bit by bit. Imagine that poor Hong Kong might need to issue debts for survival, and China will buy in the bonds. Time will come as if your balls are in his hands. He can clench his fist and crunch them, but all you can do is to say "yes". (Dongjiang water is an example). Even if he allows civil nomination or independence, there's nothing to be happy about.

141.5 billion, huh?
We are not talking about the number of sperms.

Infographic: Hong Kong vs Macau - Tourist figures

Infographic: Hong Kong vs Macau - Tourist figures

Atsuna: HKers Are Educated Illiterates, in Lu Xun's Words

Hongkongers Are Educated Illiterates, in Lu Xun's Words

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Vivian L., Written by Atsuna
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-02-2015/21495 

[Translator's note: Lu Xun was a famous leftist writer during the first half of the 20th century in China. His works are mostly written in Chinese, and you can find the English translation here.]

Lu Xun's stories are littered with rotten-to-the-core characters--they are either ignorant illiterates, or educated elites who are so fraught with envy one can almost see the green-eyed monster jumping out of the page.

Lu Xun gave up medicine to be a writer because he wanted to rescue the Chinese populace from the age-old depravity by offering stark social criticisms through literaray works. Set in early 20th century China, Lu Xun's stories -- where men wear cheongsams, and struggle over whether to cut or keep their queues (the long pigtails) years after the Qing domination had fallen -- were written to pointedly criticise and mock the society and its people for their crooked ways. It was a time, it seems, that bears little resemblance to our present day Hong Kong--Hongkongers never believe that eating a bread soaked in blood can treat tuberculosis, and we are much stronger than conceited the anti-hero Kung I-chi who is a student of the traditional teaching and a downright loser in all aspects of life--but are we so far from Lu Xun's world?

The aim of education is to enlighten. In Lu Xun's time, education was a privilege. Even if one had a chance to study, it's hard not to be influenced by the traditionalistic backward thinking that was severely outdated in the 20th century society.

Decades of modernised education has virtually eliminated illiterates in Hong Kong, yet a vast number of "educated illiterates" remains in our midst.

In Lu Xun's Medicine, when the jail warden hears the anti-Qing coup leader proudly exclaims, "The great Qing empire belongs to the People!", his only concern is whether he can squeeze some pennies out of the revolutionaries about to be executed. Blue ribbon thugs snarled at mentions of "Hong Kong nation-building" as they find the notion "rebellious", still many sought profit out of the Umbrella Revolution by signing up to the pro-Beijing camp's troop of "amateur thugs" to put on a show in the Mong Kok occupy camp.

Lu Xun taunted the cannabalistic teaching (吃人的禮教) of the old-school feudalistic ideologies in A Madman's Diary. Decades have passed, yet these ridiculous doctrines lived on in reincarnated form here in Hong Kong.

Generations of Hongkongers have been hopelessly bound by the curse of The Great Unity of the "Chinese people" and the pan-democrats' infallible dogma of "Peace, Rationality, Non-Violence and Non-swearing".

The self-deceiving loser protagonist in The True Story of Ah Q professes in "spiritual victories". Despite being synonymous with idiocy, the "Ah Q mentality" continues to be practiced by many in Hong Kong. Even the Umbrella Revolution ended in failure, Hongkongers rejoiced in their spiritual victories when the singer Common mentioned Hong Kong in his Oscar win. As if that was not enough to sate their need to feel good about themselves, they have whipped up an endless string of frivolities to "commemorate" their "hard-fought victory".

Kung I-chi knew how to write the four different forms of the character 回 (hui), for this he is happy as a clam because it makes him the only one who is "knowledgeable".

Leftards (note: faux-LEFTist reTARDs) hail themselves as "knowledgeable" people as well. They like to use jargons to confuse rather than to use valid arguments to win over opponents. When they are losing ground in a debate, they move thegoalposts just as Kung I-chi does, living out his famous saying, "Taking a book can't be considered stealing!". That's why Occupy Central™'s "volunteer lawyers" said they were not obliged to help protesters arrested during the occupy protest.

People of this generation have had much more education than the generations before us. We may not have read as much as it is good for us given our busy lives, yet we should be way more knowledgeable than people in Lu Xun's time! Why are people in this day and age still exactly the same as Lu Xun described?

When there are few choices in life, people become more ignorant. Local author Isaac Sit said,

"If people allow the rulers to decide what is most suitable for them, they become subjects who inevitably grow more and more stupid. If free choice is allowed from the start, people might make wrong choices, but they would learn from their mistakes, and gradually grow smarter."

North Koreans think of themselves as the most blessed nation in the world. Chinese are less delusional, but still think "China has risen because of the Party's right direction" without realising that if it was not for the Great Party, modern China would have advanced to the level of other developed countries decades ago, and not the newly rich with morals of barbarians that it is today.

We have allowed ourselves limited choices since childhood when our parents and teachers always say, "Do as you're told. Don't ask questions." It's only after you are all grown up that you realise you no longer have much choices in how you lead your life, whether it's choices for food and entertainment, or bigger issues like career and government. But you find yourself powerless over the status quo.

Hongkongers might want to read, but everyone has to work their arses off to pay for mortgage. When overtime is the norm, the diligent workers hardly find the time to read or be inspired by the works of Lu Xun, or at the very least suffer the awakening that Lu Xun had already berated characters exactly like themselves 100-odd years ago.

========================

Contemporary Chinese Literature Tidbits: Ah Q Spirit/Mentality

Post by Hong Kong Columns - Translated.

Atsuna: How Konggirl Became Konggirl

How Konggirl Became Konggirl

Translated by Markus Chow, Edited by Chen-t'ang and Kathy Griffen, Written by Atsuna
Original: http://atsunawai.blogspot.hk/2013/02/blog-post.html 

"Dear teacher, my daughter is not coming to school today, as she was framed yesterday and she was too hesitant to voice out," a mother said slowly, "if this goes on, I am afraid she would be scared of going to school!"

 

Wow, is that a threat? Then I am afraid I might as well be scared of going to work!

 

This incident started out when student A accused student B (daughter of the above mother) of leaving textbooks in a drawer, which is against the school rules. Though I think the rule itself is rather redundant,  students go to school after all to be disciplined –  ahhh no, to learn about discipline – so I had to keep a straight face and to punish her.

 

B had insisted that she was innocent, while A had a witness confirming that there was a copybook left in the drawer. Only afterwards did I learn that the reason A kept pursuing this case was because the two of them had a rough history back in primary school. This kind of petty grudge is not exclusive to adults.

 

"But the other students can be witnesses...," I began, but my sentence was interrupted by the mother's forceful sincerity: "That is because they are conspiring against my daughter!"

 

I couldn't help but be a little stunned. Is that what we called the TVB syndrome? But before we go into that, let's not forget that schools are society in miniature. As much as we are all asked to "suck it up" at work, we were all at one time "framed" for something back in school, weren't we?  If you want to protect your child from any adversity, you might as well have to support her for the rest of her life.

But, this truth could not be stated. Instead I told the mother, "If you really can't put your mind to rest, I promise to follow it up. But you should also be aware that during punishment period, your daughter was not supposed to do anything else against the rules, but, she was reading during so..."

 

"Ehhh, reading is a good trait!"

 

Now I could truly understand how konggirl is made. It’s the world's fault if you don't get spoiled, you use your parents to bargain with the teacher from the time you are little, and you use "breaking-up" to negotiate with or blackmail your boyfriend. You insightfully spot other peoples mistakes, but are narcissistically ignorant about your own. You live under an "Emperor's New Clothes" kind of clouded flattery from your parents. You fight for gender equality for feminists, only because females are "more equal". You are conditioned to fight for your rights no matter if you are right or wrong.

 

This is some hardcore, heavy duty education.

 

B's mother replied softly, sensing my long pause, "Dear teacher, I know that my daughter might have made a mistake, but then she has always had a poor memory. Could you please not punish her for these petty things again?"

 

I clearly heard a collapse of logic. If one can avoid punishment by excuse of a failing memory, could we abolish all tests and assessments from now on? After all, students don't want to be lazy!

I pulled myself together and replied in a nice tone, "But this school policy is meant to protect your books from being stolen."

 

"Then I shall tell her not to report to the teacher, and I will buy a new one for her in such case."

"But I wouldn't want students to think that money could solve all problems." But then again, why not, if your dad is a property business tycoon or you are talking about how well-off he is.

 

"Then...." She hesitated, and squeezed out a perfect solution for us, "could you please help to put a memo on my daughter's desk for her? Or ask for a reminder from her classmates?"

 

The negotiating tone which she used to plan for her daughter horrified me. The reason why a kind mother often gives rise to a failed son, as the common saying goes, is not by excess love, but by robbing the child's right to autonomy. Kids are more observant than we would like to believe. The first thing we learn as babies is how to grasp people's attention with piercing cries, or to have adults do our bidding by a responding smile. Human beings are cunning by nature, but laziness is the result of spoiling. If our parents and everyone around us are so hell-bent on spoiling us, why not?

 

Almost all parents have misunderstood the purpose of education. The content of exams is really not that important, nor the daily input of information and knowledge. The real essence of education is the positive attitude honed in the routine. Albert Einstein once said, "Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school."

 

Under an unlimited bombardment of tests and exams, I didn't feel that I became any cleverer, but the attentiveness and patience that I acquired remains and has stayed with me for life.

Hoi Yee Cheung: Dongjiang Water...AGAIN?

Dongjiang Water...AGAIN?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Hoi Yee Cheung (海意翔)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-08-2015/21595/ 

Dongjiang water supply...AGAIN. Probably there aren't much left to be discussed between HK and China. I don't understand, really. Does buying Dongjiang water have anything to do with "blood is thicker than water"? It is just a deal, a transaction. Buying water does not have anything to do with "blood is thicker than water". We buy Thai rice, so "blood is thicker than rice"? We buy Japanese and Korean electronic appliances, so "blood is thicker than appliances"?

It is so brazen-faced to relate a transaction with "blood ties". Zhang Xiaoming said "try as much as possible to ensure clean water delivery to HK". For real? No! Dirty water, indeed. Also, isn't the seller responsible for "trying as much as possible to ensure delivery"? Thailand tries as much as possible to ensure rice delivery, too. Shouldered basic responsibilities and felt complacent? And ask us to be grateful? Is Beijing treating Hongkongers aTV staff? We ARE ENTITLED TO get this all. We aren't as silly as aTV staff.

But thank you for mentioning Dongjiang water all the time -- now we know the problem, which makes us all Hongkongers fools. You have reminded us that, we buy water and discharge them to the sea, that we spend 260 times more than Singapore buying water from Malaysia.

Zhang Xiaoming might change his words a bit, "Buying dirty water so expensively from us? Are you nuts? Oh right, we have 'blood ties', that explains it all!"

Why Do We Need Agriculture in HK?

Why Do We Need Agriculture in HK?

Translated by Hong Kong Columns (Translated), Written by HK Potato (Chinese only)

Siu Kiu: Modern Chinese History Should Be Called the Era of "Red Peril"

Modern Chinese History Should Be Called the Era of "Red Peril"

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Kathy Griffin, Written by Siu Kiu (蕭喬)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-01-2015/21448/ 

(Source: Reuters/VOA)

When the Communist regime is someday overturned, its years of rule may come to be regarded as the "Red Peril" in Chinese history.

This is not simply an opinion about the Communist regime, it is a fact. One of the localist slogans has been "to build a culture nation" in Hong Kong. But why "culture"? You have to look at the country across our border. The idea of building a "nation state" belongs in the last century. Now that the Cold War is over and we have seen the outcomes of countries dictated by the Communists, "building a culture nation" seems a more appropriate goal.

China was culturally dead at the moment when the Communists "founded" the PRC in 1949. From 1949 to 1978, all of China was immersed in an era of "extreme Communism". Extreme politicisation was prevalent, embodied by the push to uphold Marxism-Leninism or Maoism, combat Confucianism, pursue collectivism and economic equality, the Cultural Revolution, all sorts of political struggle. These activities in the name of a single political ideology strongly affected each and every aspect of life in China, including politics, the economy, society and culture. Even Confucianism, which had prevailed for thousands years of Chinese history, permeating social relationships from the family to the state, was completely denied and rejected. "Father is dear, mother is dear, but not as dear as Chairman Mao" was a popular slogan during the Cultural Revolution. China became (and still is) culturally dead.

How did the old China "disappear" from the world? We could make a satirical comparison with its neighbouring countries. In Japan, we can find many things that we would regard as “Japanese” in the qualities, traditions and architectures there. Kinkaku-ji or the Apartment of Tokugawa Ieyasu, for example, has been retained for its significant cultural heritage. Japanese soft power is embodied in the kimono, the traditional clothing of the country, which is seen as a symbol of elegance and decency in the eyes of foreigners. Japanese pop music culture is also still part of the global mainstream. In fact, the genuine strength of the country lies in its cultural influence. The rise of Japanese culture happened during the economic miracle era of the 1950s to 1970s. Similarly, Korean culture thrives in Korea (and beyond). You can "find the culture of the country in that country".

Do not think this is a matter of course. In a Communist country, the culture of the country can be completely eliminated. And this is what happened (and still is happening) in China. The current China is not a Sinitic China, but a foreign Communism regime, drawing its breath from Russian or foreign culture. In this China, all forms of traditional culture have been destroyed, including ethics, especially during the Cultural Revolution. The Chinese you see today retain the faces of Chinese, but they do not act as they would have in the past. A culture is defined not only by its tangible parts, such as the Lunar New Year (which is now called "Spring Festival"), but also its intangibles, such as one's cultivation. We have seen the qualities that are deep down Japanese - bushido, and the considerate character - especially in the Fukushima nuclear disaster. This is the collective character underpinning the culture of the nation. But what about Chinese? They are no longer cultivated and civilised as they were in the past. They only carry the selfish gene, and Confucian values no longer exist in their minds.

You can barely argue with Chinese people, as you are not on the same channel. A Chinese citizen might say, "I have my own reasons", "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", "Money talks", or "We have our own culture". In Hong Kong, we have a different culture – we do not eat dogs, they do.  They have re-interpretation for each and every word. Socialism, "with Chinese characteristics"; Rule of Law (法治), in China would be "governing the country according to law" (依法治国) and so on. Chinese culture has long vanished to thin air, leaving "Chinese-style" culture. It is not difficult to see who is more dependent on whom for safe food when it comes to grey goods smugglers. But they will say, "Without us buying things from you, you, Hong Kong, are dead." So when we talk about the issue of Hong Kong Independence as a nation, we have reason to support this idea of "build a culture nation".

The Chinese today are pathetic. Who is to blame? Probably the "Red Peril" of Communism, but really, the Chinese people themselves. Hong Kong is fortunate enough to have been taken by the British, so we could be slightly removed from the historical tragedy. The current China has nothing to do with Chinese culture anymore. Genuine Chinese culture, however, has been restored in our neighbouring countries. We can see influences of the Tang dynasty in Japan, the Ming dynasty in South Korea, the Qing dynasty in Taiwan, and the Song dynasty in Vietnam. When an ethnic Chinese (huaren) region wants to build its own nation and aim for real strength, it does not have to think this comes solely from rely solely  economic strength or military prowess – it can also come from a cultural foundation. Hong Kong has such a foundation and it should cherish it, or we will fall to the Red Peril.

Wing Wing: Destroyers of Ancient Civilisation

Destroyers of Ancient Civilisation

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Vivian L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/02-27-2015/21438 

ISIS terrorists released a video on YouTube on 26 Feb, saying that the Prophet Mohammed ordered them to get rid of the statues and relics in the Mosul Museum in Iraq. Statues  and artefacts with 3,000 years of history were smashed with sledgehammers and electric drill; broken pieces shattered over the floor. Over 100,000 manuscripts and books were burnt, Observer reported.

Countless relics, monuments and books had been destroyed by tyrants and warfare throughout the history of mankind. If you look at examples in Chinese history, the oldest is probably Qin Shihuang's "burning of books and burying of scholars"; Cultural Revolution is another winner if you look at more recent times. In the Cemetery of Confucius, not a single piece of ancient stone tablet is currently intact -- all has once seen varying degrees of sabotage. But those are the lucky ones -- you can still somehow restore the carvings by putting the pieces together. But many other historical artefacts have suffered a fate far worse: thanks to the Cultural Revolution, many ancient architecture, antiquities and books have virtually vanished into thin air.

When a person dies, one's intellect ceases to exist; what's left of one's existence is one's works, where one's thoughts and ideas are carried through to generations beyond his own. Among all creatures, human beings are the only species who consciously keep artefacts that were passed down by their ancestors, and who are willing to even risk their lives for the sake of preserving these embodiment of humankind's wisdom. People hid books at the risk of their lives during the Cultural Revolution; and now there are "protectors of ancient civilisation" who dedicate themselves in saving manuscripts and antique in Syria.

Human beings are different from animals because we do not only aim at fulfilling physiological needs, we strive for esteem and self-actualisation, in Maslow's words. We pass on books written by our ancestors, as they are meaningful for our children. We pass on artworks that portrayed our times to our children who then pass on to children of their own, so that they can appreciate and understand the times of their fathers and mothers. We maintain and protect exquisite architectures, as they are built by our ancestors, and our offspring can learn from them. Without them carrying our wisdom, how can knowledge be accumulated? How can history be remembered?

You might wonder, ISIS is far away from Hong Kong; the Cultural Revolution is already half a century ago -- how do these things matter us? Yes, they certainly do--because the exact same thing is happening in Hong Kong. In the MTR Shatin-Central Link construction site at To Kwa Wan, excavation unearthed an ancient well and numerous historical artefacts dated back to Song (960-1279) and Yuan (1276-1368) dynasties. But MTR has rejected the in-situ conservation proposal to keep the monuments exactly where they are located because of the extra cost and time incurred to preserve the site while the construction continues. MTR also admitted to having destroyed four wells and over two hundred relics so far. Although the Antique and Monument Office (AMO) said they have recorded before the destruction of such monuments, they failed to notify the public until such incident was reported. How meaningful or not meaningful are those monument? AMO might not even know, because we will never be able to restore the destroyed monuments.

Too many invaluable monuments had been destroyed, and what we can do is to sigh. If we did the same mistake, if we care only about "money" and "progress", so much that we rob our future generations of irreplaceable pieces of history only to build a new railway line, how then would we face our next generation?

Atsuna: Why Do Chinese Suffer From Global Discrimination?

Why Do Chinese Suffer From Global Discrimination?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Atsuna
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/02-25-2015/21402 

(Reads: Arrogant locusts; not considerate, get lost!)
(Source: aTV)

Chinese people are good at “the pot calling the kettle black”.

Such country (which “rule by law” is above all) is more than eager to teach Hongkongers “rule of law”. The party is above the country; politics supersedes everything in China; yet they are criticising Hong Kong being ‘over-politicised’. The incident of Eugenia Ye, the failed proposed social secretary of Smarties (HKUSU), was criticised as ‘politicising universities’; combatting smugglers in Shatin and Tuen Mun was criticised as ‘political stance superseding rationality’. Later, condemnations towards urination or defecation might be criticised as being too ‘politicised’.

It would be too troublesome if everything has to be politicised. But CCP treats Hong Kong as a colony (though dare not to admit), and HKSARG plans to betray Hong Kong under its manipulation, being politicises is actually a way to protect ourselves. Chinese people felt otherwise, because the Newspeak of CCP does not only abbreviate things, but also distort meaning of words. "Wenming" (文明) is not being civilised, but rather not to be “locusts”; "lingdao" (領導) has nothing to do with leadership, but chiefs who can earn extra benefits and bribes; so, “politicised” does not really matter to political stances, but rather, a synonym of “discriminating we Chinese”.

There are a lot of rich people, and they are not stingy at all. But they might wonder, “Why am I hailed in China when I spend a lot, but despised in anywhere else?” Some rules are implicated when you want to earn money in China – the core one being “having guanxi”. If you want to have guanxi, you flatter your superior. They are well-trained as they are guanxi masters when they drink a lot. Hongkongers lose in this aspect. But when they are out of such jungle of money, they know few about the real world.

They don’t know why Tibet is poor but westerners still welcome Dalai Lama; why Japanese are always reporting the adulterated food; why Hongkongers are not accommodating enough to allow them to urinate and defecate. They live in a country where normal logic does not work. When you are censored in every aspect, all common sense are no longer common. Democracy, human rights, rule of law, public hygiene, transaction are not almsgiving – they might have heard of these but might not understand. So they cover up their ignorance with void reasons. So even if China rises, they might be the most susceptible Hercules. If you disagree with them or say something they can’t understand, “it’s discrimination”.

In the Shatin anti-smuggler protest, Ms Chen from Shenzhen said that those who oppose smugglers are “angry teens” (fenqing 憤青), and those who oppose Individual Visit Scheme are miso-affluent. She does not know the GDP per capita of China is 7 000 USD, but that of Hong Kong is 38 000 USD. During the Umbrella Revolution, Chinese ate their melon seeds inside the “GFW” and said “these are schemes by foreign forces”. You have to know, ignorant people like to express their views too, but they just don’t know what they are talking about.

Lewis Loud: Pan-dems Should Exterminate Themselves As HK's Survival Ranks First

Pan-dems Should Exterminate Themselves As HK's Survival Ranks First

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Lewis Loud
Original: http://dadazim.com/journal/2015/01/die-and-reborn/ 

"It is a menace for the ones who are endangering the society to cheat death." says Confucius. Martin Lee and the last-generation politicians all fall into this category. Up to the present day, Martin Lee still sticks to his all-time standing dish, saying that Xi Jinping, with de facto power, is dedicated to reform, which makes Lee himself "hold a gleam of hope" over CCP's concession on the matter of Hong Kong's constitutional reform. Enough is enough. This aloof-from-the-reality politician should better stay retired, but rather be such a menace in the society ever again.

During the class boycott in September 2014, Martin Lee said to the Hongkongers, "The democracy you're now fighting for is not only for HK but also for the 1.3 billion people in mainland China." People like Martin Lee and Szeto Wah who are either underground CCP members or people born without clearheaded minds support democratic reunification. They claimed that Hkers owe it to the mainlanders to do so since we were lucky to escape from the disasters under PRC's regime. These politicians have contributed quite a lot on China's plan gobbling up HK.

In 1989, these "democratic reunificationists" were expecting the "reform and opening up" being led by the "open-minded faction" of Zhao Ziyang, so that China and Hong Kong could share democracy and freedom. Those students from the patriotic universities were too naive to ask these questions in the letter to Zhao, such as "Will there be democracy after the 'reunification'?" This is a remarkable pathetic page of Hong Kong history. You may wonder what connected "anti-colonialism", "patriotism" and "democratic reunification" all together. The answer is the Chinese-style servility — "No matter whatever it takes, virtuous leaders will appear someday to uphold the justice and to solve all problems for good."

These "democratic reunificationists" were more than happy to see "reunification", and to wait for China's fulfillment the pledge of implementing democracy in Hong Kong, though such promise is supposedly not happening anyhow. Just as Zhao Ziyang who was knocked down at home for the rest of his life, democracy within China is but a flash in the pan. Democratic reunificationists, democrats and the bunch of people from the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) have thus lost their reputation. 

They have been pro-China from the very beginning which justify their opposition over HKers participation in the 1980s' negotiation — Due to the blind belief of the hierarchy of Chinese ethics that takes a virtuous leader to decide everything else.

The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China (HKASPDM) gained support sticking it to the Tian'anmen Massacre. Recently. The organisation recently launched a zero-awareness petition campaign to mourn Zhao Ziyang. This is how their ideology works — Crying for Zhao Ziyang, the "open-minded" leader who once almost had the chance to become a virtuous leader. Some of the members from the organisation become politicians, and claimed that they will fight for the democracy of HK. This is nothing but a lie, an utter lie.

The pan-democrats in Hong Kong are standing still on their stance — supporting China in "an open-minded manner", in which they cry for the Tian'anmen Massacre and support "rebuilding a democratic China". When the human rights activists in China praise them, they are happy as a clam. When the colonisation and bullying of Hong Kong is undergoing, they rather choose to pretend nothing has ever happened, or worse, rebuking Hongkongers in return.

D100, media ally of pan-democrats, even said "If Chow Yun-fat becomes the Chief Executive, will you 'pocket it first'?". In their logic, the system is nothing at all and what matters is the presence of a good emperor. From HKASPDM to pan-dems, HKFS, D100, to Leung Kwok-hung (Long Hair, the patriot who stayed under the pretext of Trotskyite) — no matter what the political spectrum of the pan-democrats in Hong Kong is, left or right, they all tend to stand in the side of infighting losers in China. To clarify in a clearer manner, Hong Kong is never taken into consideration all this time.

So, the action of Richard Tsoi, a member from HKASPDM and Democratic Party, reporting Hongkongers' "discriminating conduct" over mainlanders and "unduly exploitation" of local welfare resources to United Nations. To people as Tsoi, they are in the illusion of implementing their own "duty and obligation". Pan-democrats are but the remnants of the "open-minded faction" in PRC infightings. Now, Martin Lee and Apple Daily is still having fantasies towards CCP. The difference lies only on the change of subject, Xi Jinping instead of Zhao Ziyang, who is a genuine dictator. In the eyes of these blindly patriots, there are always hope towards a dictator turning into some sort of benevolent leader.

If the pan-democrats are not exterminated, Hong Kong will never be released from the bondage. Some who propose a more inclusive attitude towards pan-dems is in fact casting doubts on the right of Hong Kong autonomy. If these people, embracing the idea of emperor's regime should be regarded innocent, then what can still be left for the dignity of Hong Kong? None. Pan-dems should exterminate themselves as Hong Kong's survival ranks first.

Law Pui-lam: Desinification and Hong Kong's Self-determination

Desinification and Hong Kong's Self-determination

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Vivian L., Written by Law Pui-lam
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/01-28-2015/20825 

(Photo Source: Reuters/BBC)

On 8th January 2015, I wrote "Desinification Is The Right Course" for my column on Passion Times. A reader said I failed to distinguish the party and the country, and that, the reader reckoned, was a common failing among localists. Apparently, this reader thinks that the CCP should be separated from China. I believe many people, especially those who are against the localism camp, think that the culprit of ruining China, Hong Kong and Taiwan is the Chinese Communist Party, not China. And we should rid the world of CCP, not of China.

When I was penning that article, I quoted an example from CCP's internal struggle. I pondered over the title and content of my piece, wondered whether it was best to eliminate any connotation of the Chinese Communist Party. In the end, I opted for de-sinicisation entirely as I concluded that one cannot talk about the wrong of the CCP without considering the wrong of sinicisation.

The problem of CCP is the problem of sinicisation
Technically, it seems reasonable to consider the party and the country as two separate entities. In short, the present China is ruled by the authoritarian CCP. We can overturn CCP, but we cannot overturn China.

But can we really separate CCP from China?

CCP seems to be easier to define, from the perspective of organisation or regime; but the concept of China is more complicated. In general, "China" is the country we talk about, but defining "a country" is much more difficult than that. [Translator's note: Country/nation/state are all 國家 guojia in Chinese.]

"Nations are notoriously difficult to define," George Kateb has claimed in his book Patriotism and Other Mistakes. In fact, the notion of "nation" includes tangible things such as territory, geographical landscape and historical sites; while it is also defined by people's memory, the history, culture, and interpersonal relationships (such as clans). According to Kateb, these memories, history, culture and interpersonal relationships are things that are glorified by the people and the subjective imagination of people.

Territory is more specific, but it is inherently bound to the ruling regime. Over the past 2,000 years, the boundaries of the Middle Kingdom have changed as the dynasties waxed and waned. The current mainland Chinese territory is the territory owned by the Chinese Communist Party - and the two are inescapably intertwined. That leaves the only things that can be ideologically separable from CCP being, perhaps, the geographical landscapes and the historical sites.

People might argue that the concept of China refers to things more intangible, like history, culture and interpersonal relationships. But these things are intricately tied to CCP as well.

Communism is a product of the West. But the workings of CCP, from organisations to operations, is closely connected to Chinese culture and interpersonal relationships. I have argued in my article "Impossible for China to Have A Democratic Regime", that the Chinese society, especially the interpersonal relationship in rural societies, is dominated by clans and families. In the landmark study of Chinese peasant society, China's Peasants, Potter and Potter also posited that the political struggles in rural China is but clan and family struggles. CCP has not changed the traditional interpersonal relationship, but rather it has carried the deep-rooted traditions forward. In fact, we can still understand the politics of CCP by considering the clanships among the cronies of Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang and Bo Xilai.

Governance with CCP characteristics
Such paternalistic clan culture translates as a top-down bureaucratic culture in the political sphere. "Parent-politics", or gerontocracy, not only had been the norm of Imperial China for thousands of years, it is also how CCP operates. We saw in 1989 Tiananmen mass movement that even Zhao Ziyang, the General Secretary of CCP at the time, the supreme high command of the party, had to succumb to Deng Xiaoping to call the shots!

Besides such interpersonal relationship, other cultural values are just as well deep-rooted. Some mainlanders I knew emigrated overseas to flee CCP. But when the subject of discussion falls on the legitimacy of Xinjiang to call for its independence as it has its own language, religion and culture, their dissent often are so hysterical that it borders on a complete loss of reason. During the Umbrella Revolution, I discussed the future of Hong Kong with a Chinese friend. He said mainlanders cannot fathom the idea of Hong Kong taking its political future in its own hands, not to mention being independent from China. Why so? It all boils down to "The Great Unity" invented by the Draconian emperor, Qin Shihuang.

"The Great Unity" has stirred up countless warfare and slaughters, as well as the prohibition of all regional and ethnical autonomy and self-determination. To realise "The Great Unity", CCP was adamant in taking back Hong Kong in 1997, and has been ever so fixated on seizing Taiwan. What is more horrid is that "The Great Unity" is not only a scheme of the rulers, but it is also shared by the common people. In fact, around the time of Hong Kong's handover in 1997, some Hongkongers joined the Chinese in demanding "reunification" and disapproving the proposal of an independent Hong Kong.

On the surface, the ideas of CCP and China seem separable. But examples above have already shown how closely tied the two are. When we are talk about "desinification", or proclaim that we are Hongkongers, and not Chinese, many still find it unacceptable. Kateb argued that what's at play is actually "patriotism" where a person identifies with his fellow countrymen, a certain group or a race.

It's more than just rejecting CCP
Yet, as Hong Kong's local identity blossoms, more and more Hongkongers identify themseleves as Hongkongers rather than Chinese, and support the idea of self-determination, Hongkongers are not merely rejecting the visible hand of CCP, but also demanding desinification--the removal of "Chineseness". These are all because Hongkongers are no longer contend with having an authoritarian regime that exercises parentalism over their heads, and dismiss "The Great Unity" altogether. Only when Hong Kong is desinicised can the city develop to be a rational, modern society and leap forward to the direction of nation-state.

Reference:
1. George Kateb (2006), Patriotism and Other Mistakes, New Haven: Yale University Press.
2. Sulamith Potter and Jack Potter (1990), China's Peasants: The Anthropology of a Revolution, New York: Cambridge University.

Chan Ya-ming: Lau Nai-keung - Forerunner of Hong Kong Independence

Lau Nai-keung - Forerunner of Hong Kong Independence 

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Chan Ya-ming (former editor in The Undergrad, HKUSU)
Original: http://localpresshk.com/2015/02/forerunner-of-hong-kong-independence/ 

My friend sent me the remarks of Lau Nai-keung a while ago, but I almost forgot to write about this because of the plan of withdrawal from HKFS. And, I almost forgot to thank Lau Nai-keung, the CPPCC deputy, for bringing this up. We are not the only cohort of The Undergrad which mentioned "Hong Kong independence" (HKI). It is not unusual to see previous Undergrad members writing about HKI.

But have you every imagined Lau Nai-keung was also part of the "previous Undergrad members"? In 1969, Lau was the then assistant editor-in-chief, Chan Yuen-ying (the current Director of Journalism and Media Studies Centre, HKU [Translator's note: political stance - pro-China]) was the Editor-in-chief, and guess who is the publication secretary? Yes, the one who spends his lunar new year in jail, Rafael Hui (spelt as Raphael then). Quite unimaginable even now.

An article in 1969 The Undergrad, "From Refugees to the Independence of Hong Kong", wrote,

So-called intellectuals immediately rejected and said "it's impossible" when they hear HKI. But let us ask ourselves: this "impossible" might mean - technically it would be the best if it happens, but there are many technical difficulties, which are impossible to overcome. One might stop such imagination. Such view is but unrealistic self-deception.

Such perspective is so precise, and still valid, as it mentioned the mentality of Hongkongers towards HKI. And it continued, "If Hong Kong has to be connected with China, it is just an emotional need. It brings more harm than good, and independence is the best." This is what now the localists support - "HK-China Segregation", and such idea was in discussion four decades ago.

The author of this article signed his name as Wah Sau [Translator's note: A Cantonese idiom 狼過華秀隻狗 roughly means "More fierce than the dog of Wah Sau", a phrase to describe a person's aggressiveness and fierceness.]. Of course we cannot determine whether he wrote this article or not. But if he is the assistant editor-in-chief, then it had something to do with Lau if this article goes to print. Actually, it is no big deal to mention HKI. The Undergrad had much more radical views before, and one needs not to react so strongly to this.

As a forerunner of mentioning HKI in 1969 The Undergrad, Lau is now often mentioning The Undergrad on Ta Kung Pao or Wen Wei Po. He actually mentioned it four decades ago, and is it something new for him?

Although Lau said "to HKI supporters, the government has to be tough 'orally and physically'", kind of bringing white terror, that cohort of The Undergrad members enlightened the latter members on the courage and imagination of mentioning HKI. They had contributed a lot. I must thank Mr. Lau Nai-keung for his contribution in mentioning HKI! Please let him know that I have expressed my sincere gratitude!

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

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

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

(Photo source: Pasu Au Yeung)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Undergrad/HKUSU] Chan Ya-ming: The Final Generation of Hongkongers

The Final Generation of Hongkongers

Translated by HKCT Editorial Team, Written by Chan Ya-ming (陳雅明)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/01-30-2015/20873 

If there are people who still want to live their lives, then they should dare to speak, to laugh or to cry, to be angry, to criticise and to beat.

In this damned place, they combatted the damned era!

Lu Xun

Lu Xun once said the Chinese history can be split into two dynasties: One is an era when people crave to slaves but fail to do so; another is an era that people can temporarily be slaves. That is to say, in the past few thousand years, being slaves is part of China's history. Affecting by the history, Chinese can only be slaves somehow. There are many kinds of Chinese in Hong Kong as such, and some even forgot their identities as human beings when they are too indulged in the roles.

Half of the history of Hong Kong is also about being slaves. Youngsters in Hong Kong no longer want to continue this pathetic path, so they scream for self-determination and attempt to start a new page in history. Youngsters in Hong Kong opt to embrace the rights one should have as an ordinary person, but the regime has turned them down without the slightest hope left. Those who act are arrested; those who speak are lambasted publicly. I couldn't have imagined the world has degenerated as such, and it is out of my expectation that the lambasting will fall on The Undergrad [Translator's note: it is the magazine produced by HKUSU].

CY Leung criticised The Undergrad and made open the names of our Editorial Board. It is similar to the "struggle session" during the Cultural Revolution, creating white terror apparently. After the Umbrella Revolution, CY Leung did not reflect upon the relationship between him and the youngsters, but rather, he provoked us again and again — asking us to further our career outside Hong Kong, and now lambasting The Undergrad by using tactics and thoughts from the Cultural Revolution. Starting a comprehensive political suppression and ideological control, CY Leung "tackles" all of the existing youth issues.

Since the founding of The Undergrad in 1952, the magazine is accommodating and inclusive. Opinions towards the future of Hong Kong have often been treated as radical. In the late 1960s, there were already articles discussing the Hong Kong Independence (HKI); and in the early 1970s, an article, on the contrary, said the complete solution to Hong Kong is to go for socialism completely. These students are now well-known leftists. Did the Governor at the time criticise them in public? In the late 1960s, there were articles criticising the problems found in the colonial administration, and Governor Sir Trench replied the editorial board in a decently-written letter, entirely different from what CY Leung did these days. No wonder some youngsters reminisce about the colonial era once in a while.

CY Leung does not show the demeanour a politician supposed to have, but rather take things out of context. J.Y. wrote "HK Independence from A Military Perspective", and CY mentioned it during the Policy Address 2015 press conference, saying this article describes how can Hong Kong set up an army just like Singapore. Either Leung did not read it seriously, or he read it and distorted it deliberately. If he did read it not in a casual manner, he can certainly get the conclusion: none of all "army-building options" is viable at the moment.

The Editorial Board did not write it for conspiring the movement of HKI, but rather, we found no discussion on this topic. Even one does not agree with the stance of HKI, there should be freedom of discussing HKI. But articles without the value of "name-and-shame" will not be mentioned by CY Leung. To The Undergrad, the freedom of speech is more important than one's political stance. It is certainly a surprise for all of us that the Chief Executive of HK can be this narrow-minded not to tolerate a word of a student magazine.

It is a pseudo-statement when leftist mouthpieces accuse The Undergrad of supporting HKI. The Undergrad is only a campus media, with political discourse or news reports at most. We explore in different thoughts and no action has been taken. How can this construct the implementation of HKI? We are not like some officials, who receive foreign capital. We have no support nor connection to "external powers". Thus how do we possibly "conspire the movement of HKI"?

George Orwell sees through these tactics adopted by the authoritarians, who aim to fool the people with lies one after another. It is no news for the authoritarians to utilise sophistry and "newspeak", like "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" in order to make believe. Sophistry is prevalent since Leung sworn in. Now that The Undergrad merely discuss the possibility of HKI without any action, but have already been accused of conspiring it. It incarnates the newspeak of HKSARG that talking about HKI is equal to conspiring the movement of HKI. These are but silly illogical sophistry, which you can immediately crack it with a few steps of analysis. No offence, but it is rather dim-witted for those who fall for these lamb excuses.

People who brown-nose the CCP will ask people to show their loyalty by answering the "correctly" on the matter of HKI. Some pan-dems are more than eager to show that they are "clean", and said they have nothing to do with HKI. "Before answering questions, one should understand the keywords in the question" — that is something a secondary school student can easily manage.

When faced such interrogation, it is not wise to "sever ties as soon as possible". Why don't we ask our dearest CY Leung or Andrew Fung in return of their definition of HKI? And what is in their minds towards Taiwan current status? An independent rule from China? If they regard Taiwan not as an independent place, then undoubtedly The Undergrad stands for no HKI notion.

If to them HKI means to have its own army, they should know that The Undergrad does not have such proposal as well. But If HKI to them, means to have certain kind of political system and democratic election without the manipulation from the CCP (such as civil nomination), then YES, The Undergrad has supported this from the very beginning. The key is: Aren't pan-dems pursuing a democratic election which CCP couldn't rig? Our September 2014 edition, with the main theme of "The Democracy and Independence of Hong Kong", was written partly because some leftist mouthpieces frame "civil nomination" as "HKI"; the pan-dems and some newspapers were afraid of tags of HKI, and so they severed ties with localism.

In the eyes of CCP, elections it couldn't rig will be considered as trends of HKI. If pan-dems are still avoiding the topic of HKI, any proposal of "genuine universal suffrage" will be considered as "supporting HKI". When CY actively mentioned HKI, it is timely to ask him whether nomination counts as supports to HKI. But the pan-dems just do not prompt that question. If CY says "No", it would be just right as the civil not nomination will be clarified as irrelevant to HKI. Case solved. If CY says "Yes", his "HKI" is merely nothing but civil nomination. What on earth, in this way would "HKI" scary you away? Nothing, right?

The Hong Kong Nation Discourse (also translated as Hong Kong Nationalism) or the issue of HKI is only discussed within some small circles. Some may not even dare to think about it, and HKI is definitely not a mainstream idea. The one who put HKI to headlines of mainstream media is CY Leung. He has stimulated the imagination of HKI to Hongkongers and wrongly assumed that he has his own freedom of speech to say whatever he likes to whoever he is to blame. But he seems to forget he himself as a CE, acting as an authority will bring about political consequences as a result of his actions. Dominating the political agenda and suppressing opposition voice will be likely to happen.

The Undergrad might activate few drops of discussion, but CY Leung is capable of triggering a wave of support towards HKI once he says the opposite. After his criticism against The Undergrad, the topic of HKI has suddenly become a mainstream topic on everybody's tongue. Some may even chant slogans such as "Brilliant is Leung Chun-ying; replace Xi Jinping", and hail CY Leung as the "Father of Independence". I am afraid the only person in Hong Kong who is capable of implementing HKI would be CY himself.

Meanwhile, some pro-China minions betray Hongkongers to curry favours with its masters by giving some ridiculous remarks. They suggested that before the legislation of Article 23, Basic Law, the State Security Law should be tried or implemented partially in Hong Kong. It is predictable that if a Chinese Law is introduced, the other will follow and then a trend will be formed. In this case, befor 2047, we will have no choice but to live with "Chinese-style socialsim" in Hong Kong.

Such speeches are not merely gibberish from small officials, but were endorsed by Tung Chee-hwa, the Vice-Chairman of NPC. Tung said, "Legal grounds are there for the introduction of Chinese law to Hong Kong". Before 1997, the national leader maysay, "Well water does not interfere with river water, and the vice versa". Nowadays, some traitors are ruining Hong Kong by "pouring sewage into the well".

Launching the White Paper, making the August 31st Decision in NPCSC, criticising the "conspiracy of HKI" in Policy Address and introducing "State Security Law" in Hong Kong — these are all as Mao referred to "contradictions between ourselves and the enemy". CY Leung and his minions are dedicated to launch a political struggle, to suppress all opposition voices, and even, at the expense of One Country, Two Systems.

After the Umbrella Revolution, a question was asked online: After this, how can young Hongkongers carry on their lives? And the answer to that was "Endure it or commit suicide." When one has been enlightened, and yet no path can be seen, he suffers even more. This generation has lost the patience to tolerate this can't-be-more-ridiculous system as the last generation did, and they all intend to live a life with dignity. But now are there alternatives other than seeking for an afterlife?

In "In Memorial of Liu Ho-chen", Lu Xun mentioned that Liu was a student of the Peking Women's College of Education majoring in English and was shot dead at the age of 22 due to the petition to the Beiyang government during early years of ROC. Lu Xun said, she was a youngster who died for China, instead of surviving with shame. For youngsters with ideals and aspirations, they do not turn a blind eye to the tyrannic regime. Witnessing HKSARG getting more lunatic, our generation of the umbrella era will not step back. Somehow it gives me the feeling that it is CY's intention to turn us all Liu Ho-chen. Correct me if I am wrong.

At the end of the article, Lu Xun said "Those aimless survivors might see light in the tunnel of the colour of blood, but real hero(in)es will be more dedicated and march forward." The time is on the side of youngsters. The fate of Hong Kong and youngsters are intertwined and interconnected. If the youngsters step back, then there will not be another generation for Hong Kong. It is time we decide for our own fate, the fate as a human-being. Arise and fight for Hong Kong!

Related content:
[Undergrad/HKUSU] Chan Ya-ming: The Scream of Our Generation
[Undergrad/HKUSU] Keyvin Wong: Localism: Hongkongers' Only Salvation
[Undergrad/HKUSU] J.Y.: HK Independence from A Military Perspective

Atsuna: Commoners Can Be Accomplices of The Authoritarians Too

Atsuna: Commoners Can Be Accomplices of The Authoritarians Too

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Atsuna
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/02-14-2015/21191 

If the "political correctness" indoctrinated to the minds of some Hong Kong or Taiwan celebrities, they will be backfired by those mainland "fans". Chapman To once said in his Facebook page, "Some unreasonable mainland netizens were born in the 1990s, those "fans" of celebs should be youngsters who should be supporting their idols unfailingly. Or at least in normal countries, they should be those least interested in politics. Although there were many student campaigns in the track of history, they criticised the authority. Chinese youths are more peculiar, mentioning the national interests all the time and linking the party's interests to themselves.

Arthur Schöpenhauer once said, "The cheapest sort of pride is national pride, for if a man is proud of his nation, he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud. Otherwise, he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can [be proud adopts], as a last resort, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, this reimbursing himself for his own inferiority."

So it is more than understandable when Chinese youth can turn a blind eye on things like Liu Xiaobo and Chen Guangcheng. Be calm over injustice (such as illegal land acquisition by the government, using backdoor 'guanxi' benefit their jobs or studies and be utterly patriotic than the Blue Ribbon thugs. The silence is finally broken -- to defend for the national interests. Sort of a compensating, isn't it? But they simply stop thinking and let the party decide on what to speak.

In Zhang Yihe's book. She wrote, "A scholar thinks that, 'If the subjects follow and get used to the method of thinking pig the rulers, then they are accomplices." Chinese get hysteric when they heard Taiwan independence, Hong Kong independence, Tibet independence, or Xinjiang independence. They do not even ask why. If some people even dare not to curry CCP's favours, such as putting a cap on IVS, they just became the "spokespersons of the Chinese Foreign Ministry" with evil faces. Their "enthusiastic attachment" to politics are but beyond one's imagination. It is hard to imagine they live in a country where "Communist Party" becomes a banned searching keyword on Baidu.

Milk formula? Poison. School buildings? Jerry-built. High-speed rail? High-speed accidents. Money and Guanxi? All fixed. People's lives are under the "Russian Roulette", depending on one's luck. Youngsters know the corruption of the country, and the problems in the Communist Party, but when the national interests is involved (high-rank officlas' interests, to be specific), they get "untied". People say "Where they sit affects how they think", but in Chinese logic, leaders decide how the people think. Or else why commoners think of the national interests all the time as if they were cadres?

So stop saying Chinese tourists are commoners. Ask them their views on TWI or HKI, or curb on IVS. You will know they are "accomplices", as Zhang said. When there are disasters upon Hong Kong, Chinese netizens enjoy a lot with Schadenfreude. Leftards are pinpointing at "fascist Hongkongers", but why did they turn a blind eye to hate speech from the Chinese people? Wouldn't it be too scoundrel?