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?

Atsuna: Why Is Military Training A Must for Kids in Hong Kong Mums' Minds?

Why Is Military Training A Must for Kids in Hong Kong Mums' Minds?
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Atsuna
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/01-26-2015/20786 

Hongkongers radically do not have a clue how to hit the country's spot: bootlicking seems to be the best tune, but in fact it goes to the wrong way.

When the people from mainland China are "in cahoots with foreign powers", Hongkongers rather give in the world and accommodate China as the new one; When the people from mainland China are learning English with eagerness, Hong Kong on the contrary ruins the generation's English by the "Mother Tongue Education", and even promots "Putonghua as the medium of instruction for Chinese subject" (PMIC); when the mainlanders cast doubts on the military training on students, Hong Kong rather fervently advocates "military summer camp", and now goes so far as to "Hong Kong Army Cadets"!

In China, it is compulsory for high school students (Grade 10) and university freshmen to participate in military training (MT). Military Service Law in 1955 provids the grounds for MT, but before the Tian'anmen Massacre in 1989, students were not forced to do so.

A Chinese writer therefore marked  1989 as the first year of MT, and since then nearly all freshmen have to receive MT for at least a month. Peking University being the staunch supporter of 1989's student movement was even given a year of MT for every student. Even though this one-year MT rule didn't maintain for a long time, it is crystal clear of its motive taming the revolutionary students.

No wonder Chen Danqing, a painter, said on his Weibo, "MT on students acts in no good purposes. This is a form of education turning men into slaves, and should it only exist in authoritarian states like North Korea. Do we opt to training a healthy, independent and free-thinking future generation, or simply obedient machines one after another?"

News covering severe corporal punishment in the training has made Chinese starting to cast doubts on the purpose of MT. Alone in 2014, there is quite some scandals happened. In Hunan, 42 injuries in total, and one of them is a teacher, who is in critical condition. All beaten by the instructors; In Liaoning, a female high schooler committed suicide after criticised of a disqualified posture; In Xi'an, a male student fell on the ground during training, and was certified dead during the way to hospital.

Well, just as I expected, flunkies popped up in time and categoried these as "exceptional cases". They criticised the youngsters are unable to face adversity, and said things such as "Many Chinese parents condone and spoil their only children, and MT can help build up their kids' team spirit and discipline". It does sound familiar, isn't it? These are precisely the reasons Hong Kong mums sending their children to MT camps!

The "Hong Kong Youth Military Summer Camp" and "Hong Kong University Student Military Life Experience Camp" are free in charge. I believe those mums will not value Chen Zuo'er's words ("Brainwashed by the Western theories and have to be refill their brain with the correct thoughts") much, but still pushing their young adult daughters and sons to participate in these camps. Why? Discipline training and advantages taking. In some weirdo university students' minds, "Work life is surely going to be much harder than studying. Through the camp, I can prepare myself to be more tenacious!”

Apart from parents, there are some school headmasters who force their students to join "discipline training camp. The harshness is indeed not comparable to MT, but running around the field, standing still under the sun and doing conditioning are matters of course. Be it MT or discipline training camps, through torturing your body, the endgame is about tearing down one's self-worth and turn people into more "disciplined" selves.

The main course includes severe conditioning punishment due to some slightest issues. Everyone gets to running around the field and doing press-ups. The "team spirit" the camp has attempted to build is based on collectivism. If one cannot be found obedience, it will make them all "villains". Those cocky or go-one's-own-way students are therefore the targets. Added with looped scolding and peer pressure, the students are "re-moulded" as "good" students who will succumb to authority.

Mere punishment is known to be insufficient. This is where the existence of "self-repentance" lies to complete the program. Under some sentimental music, exhausted students are forced to think through what they did wrong to their parents, their teachers and even the universe. Some may even kneel before the teachers and cry, swearing that they will start with a clean slate. If an outsider is to watch the scene, he or she might have thought the students have commited some sort of serious crime.

Not a few parents strongly believe such training camps can turn their kids into tougher ones, as it is known that students are supposed to suffer there. Yet, when they get out from the bars....I mean camps, they might be good boys and girls for a few days, however, it is but a on-the-spur-of-the-moment thing. Expecting a weekly camp to get rid of bad habits that has been accumulated for years, isn't it too greedy?

Knowing that the environment can change a person, Hong Kong mums get used to compare their kids with the same age from mainland China. These mums blame their kids for being less industrious than the ones there. Satirically, for years, these mums have instructed the domestic helpers to take care of all the "irrelevant" matters for their kids so that they can focus on practical skills such as English, Mandarin, piano, painting, dancing, etc – What so surprise if such kids cannot endure hardships?

Tofulism: Chain Store That You Might Want to Blacklist

Chain Store That You Might Want to Blacklist

Written by HKCT Editorial Team
Integrated report

(Source: Fion via PassionTimes)

Allowing mainland Chinese to jump queues and smearing neighbouring store - are these proper business practices?

Few days ago, a writer called "Sham Shui Housewife" on Grassmediaction described what happened in Tofulism Sham Shui Po branch. Kung Wo was an older tofu shop in Sham Shui Po, with fair price level and food product. Around a month ago, there is a new neighbour next to Kung Wo - Tofulism, a chain store having their branches in Tuen Mun, Tseung Kwan O, and Yuen Long.

Tofulism has adopted predatory pricing strategy, aiming at driving out Kung Wo, and so they set a much lower price, and used promoters instead of playing recordings. Yet they called customers who continue to go to Kung Wo as "country bumpkins", and implied the food quality of Kung Wo is bad.

The story hasn't ended yet - the same store, different branch has something more to tell. The Tuen Mun branch was complained by Fion, who queued for tofu puddings, but were jumped queue by a mainland Chinese. Fion told her to get to the end of the queue, but a mainland shop assistant from the shop said "You don't need to queue, I call the shot here."

Chinese links:
https://grassmediaction.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/anti_tofulism/
http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-30-2014/18144

Julian Yip: That's How Our Next Generation Grows

That's How Our Next Generation Grows

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Julian Yip
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/01-17-2015/20621 

In a district consultation forum back in 2013, 689 (Translator's note: nickname of CY Leung, as he only gained 689 votes) said, "If a four-or-five-year-old kid asks CY, where should he live after marrying...." The kid popped up.

In the Policy Address 2014, the kid popped up again. 689 again said, "A kindergarten kid asked, 'CE, where should I live when I am grown?'" In Polict Address 2015, there goes the kid again, "A five-year-old kid once asked me 'CE, where should I live when I am grown? Are there sufficient land in HK?'"

When kids in Hong Kong have grown to five, besides thinking about the land and housing problem, they need to learn how to "love China", according to the Our Lady's Kindergarten in Wong Tai Sin.

Post by Hong Kong Columns - Translated.

When the kids do not even know how to love their parents, you need to learn the concept of "nationalities are based on countries". When the kids might not know how to write their own names properly, they have to write "I am Chinese". You are what the teachers said - Concept of "Hongkongers"? Excluded.

CY Leung has supported the establishment of "HK Army Cadets Association" as an honorary sponsor. His wife, Regina Tong, will be the chief commander of the army cadets. A secondary school has issued a notice, urging Form 1 students to attend this activity. In Hong Kong, after you have understood the concept of "nationalities are based on countries" and thought about land and housing problems in Hong Kong, you now have to participate in activities of New Red Guards. Selfish adults earn piles of Renminbi by messing Hong Kong around, but they are not satisfied yet. They turn kids into victims, and ruin their childhood by sending them on the way to flatter the Communist Party.

It is already bad when these adults do not prepare a better growing environment for the kids, why are they so brazen-faced to take advantage of the kids and curry flavour to China? They are utterly not ashamed. How will our next generation grow in a world where adults can be so unprincipled, selfish and immoral?

Adults who are counting Renminbi notes will say, "The most important thing is that I can earn money."

Gnimm: United We Fail - Should HKFS Dismantle?

United We Fail - Should HKFS Dismantle?

Translated by Poppie, Written by Gnimm
Original: http://gnimmm.com/2014/12/27/badunity/ 

(Screen capture from aTV)

[Translator's note: After the Umbrella Revolution, there are different opinions towards the performance of Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS). Students from HKU has proposed HKUSU to quit HKFS (as the current FS is composed of eight students unions of 8 universities). They have called upon a referendum in school to decide whether to stay or quit. HKFS has since responded the bill by saying this will only please the Communist Party as pro-government student organisations has been established since 1989, eg Hong Kong Tertiary Student Alliance, or HKTSA.]

I am not sure if the Communist Party would be the happiest one if college student unions quit Hong Kong Federation of Students. But I do know that the pan-democrats and leftards will be the most frustrating ones if it happens. From my point of view, that is a pretty good reason to propose the issue to upset those who have been dragging the democracy development of Hong Kong for twenty to thirty years. There's no point of being together and accusing each other if different SUs are not of similar minds.

To respond to the proposal of quitting HKFS from HKU, HKFS reacted quickly to show they have always been non-profit and with not dependent on [strong] power. However, after the Umbrella Revolution, people realise the discrepancy between the truth of the organisation and its self-portrait and description. The things about being composed of all universities' student unions therefore being responsible to member; the election of university representatives and the whole structure of HKFS respects different voices are all measurements to attract people. 

HKFS knows very well that the current agenda is not easy to be moderated. So as the general direction. People are inherently lazy. Being "Greater China supporters", supporting integration of Hong Kong and China, tolerating new immigrants are all under the general line of the federation. There are very few people who will advocate for change. The existence of HKFS is very solid as long as we all think it is better than nothing. What HKFS is really afraid is that some new power can walk the walk and not to abided by rules. Then it would be abandoned and ignored completely. Not even getting any spotlight. Then, pan-democrats and leftards cannot piggyback on students.

There are always doubts on whether university reps and the consensus system is as important and running smooth as HKFS claimed it to be. The decision of accepting the government to join the debate has never been consulted within the organization. Using "pseudo-escalation", but putting protesters at risks - such acts were never agreed by the members. The relationships between HKFS and its member has been abused. HKFS claims they are the elected organisation when they need the say; they put the blame of not monitoring well on the members when the split proposal comes out. This is the same as the Democratic Party saying all their decisions have supports from the voters. Shameless.

It is without doubt that the universities have their own organisation. However, it is clear that all the organisations are small and cannot compete with FS. Even though there are Current Affairs Committees Councils, University Affairs Committees under HKUSU, all with self-autonomy and measures to speak out, it is still incomparable against HKFS. This has nothing to do with whether FS is pressuring the universities but the fact that HKFS has always been regarded as the entity that represents the eight universities. Their status is above others. FS is using this non-influential units to prove that it is unnecessary to quit FS. They are using it as an excuse for their incapability. This is simply unreasonable and unconvincing. It is pathetic for them to frame reasons in order to guarantee their status and avoid the so-called "split of power".

The image of HKFS has been ruined. Unless there is another new determined cabinet to take over, there will not be any progress in the tertiary student sector. It does not matter if the bill of HKUSU does not pass this time. What truly matters is that, the next group of people will be there to fight after making a breaking point. The initial phase of the advocacy has to be fierce and high-profiled.

Quitting FS will definitely not cause a split in the tertiary student sector. It will also never lessen the whole power of FS. It is because there will only be progress when there is competition. The die hard supporters of HKFS should regard this as a voting within a political party instead of a challenge to the authority of HKFS

The tertiary student sector is a very vague concept. It is the people, which means it is also the crowd with no opinion. Splitting into two sides and the one who is capable of being a leader will become stronger in the competition and lead the crowd at the end. The enlightenment of freshmen will be accelerated. The strength of the tertiary student sector will be consolidated. It is important to have a leader and this leader has to be trained. This is a simple fact that will not change even with the democratic systems. Split, in whatever sense, is only doing good deed. It should be done and is worth doing. The sooner the better.

Gnimmm: Condescending "Beasteachers" and Laurel-resting Students

Condescending "Beasteachers" and Laurel-resting Students

Translated by Ciel K. and Karen L., Edited by Karen L., Written by Gnimmm
Original: http://gnimmm.com/2014/12/01/%E4%B8%80%E9%96%8B%E5%A7%8B%E8%AA%95%E4%B8%8B%E5%B7%B2%E7%B6%93%E8%92%BC%E8%80%81/ 

(Clipped from ATV)

Relating "teachers" with "beasts" is something I never wish to do, and yet most of the them in Hong Kong, even not the worst, are no more than "workers who teach", and certainly far from reaching the standard being teachers. They are ignorant enough to assume that they have already fulfilled the ultimate requirements of being a teacher: building positive values for the students and training the students to think critically. But ironically neither do they have a clear set of principle for themselves, nor do they realise the fact that schools are in fact some social organisms.

Most of the teaching staff are typically shallow-minded. Getting into the administrative sector years later does not help them get rid of the paternalistic ruling: No freedom at all times. This is the prime reason why the students in Hong Kong are becoming this well-tamed. These teaching staff restrict the students in every possible way to ensure nothing goes wrong with themselves. Added with the regular quashing on students in the name of authority, their students suffer due to the lack of life experience.

To solve the problem caused, we have to go deep into their mindset and their way handling matters. It is rather their habitual practice persuading the bad students aside and isolating them from the peer. Isn't this trick perfectly the same to those armed with power and wealth in the society? This trick serves as a defence avoiding public discussions that would place them in disadvantage.

In the school context, positions between students and teachers have never been equal. Teacher is a side of vested interests in the establishment, responsible for setting rules. Yet interestingly, people seem to forget that the legitimacy of teachers is originated from the trust of both parents and students, and that they owe a say of being a victim or not. It is the same as the police force abuse the power, people have the right to claim it back, given that it is authorised by the citizens themselves for the sake of protecting the place.

That is why it is justifiable for students to point out teachers' mistakes and to stop them from abusing the power ever again. This is not a case reconstructing "red guards" in the Cultural Revolution, but merely empowering the students themselves.

Students in secondary schools, therefore, shall be entitled to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief. They are born with such freedom discussing political issues which is not some sort of grace spared by some "honourable" principals, whereas some beasteachers constantly please their superiors and "thoughtfully" advise the students to cherish the principal's leniency. What a new definition of ridiculousness! And its tone closely resembles Zhang Xiaoming's words "The fact that you [pan-dems] are allowed to stay alive, already shows the country's inclusiveness".

Believing themselves to be infallible,  the administrative personnel, the Directors of General Affairs and the social workers choose to solve the problems within their own "system". Observing and adopting perpetually this distorted set of methods, students therefore lose their innately ability to process some formulae in dealing with problems along the way.

This also explains the reason that a number of students from the non-prestige schools only realise that they had never faced the genuine challenges when they get into the universities and that they have a hard time outperforming their peers who have been used to go against the bureaucratic management in school of serious matters. Due to the pedanticism in secondary schools, the students are isolated from the real world.

Numerous indisputable examples are there. Factually, independence on secondary school students is relatively lower than that on universities students, however, most of the schools are willing to share with the students some clear-cut rules about rights they should have. This paternalistic ruling is what makes the students' unions and house captains figureheads-only.

It has been vague towards the line of power between secondary schools and their students' unions, not to mention that students' union does not exist in each and every school. These students' unions, if not all, have not been once released statement to the outside world. All these are linked to some students' confusion between executive committees and student residents' associations, which then followed by harsh criticisms from their peers.

Students' unions in secondary schools are merely puppets without genuine influence on the school policies. It can tell by their usual duties: simply pursuing welfare and reflect opinions. Even if such unions are bold enough to raise a petition or whatsoever, all they can get is at most an expression of certain stance but not some true efforts that make changes.

On the face of it, through the permission of students' unions, the schools attempted to seem avant-garde. In these cages, student-based authorities are there generated one by one acting as a consultant organisation reflecting students' opinions to school. Yet obviously enough, being as some consultant means to have no share of the power.

A students' union with power is at bottom castles in the air, whereas the make-believe power successfully deceives the students as if the fake universal suffrage deceives quite a number of citizens. For the secondary schools, every single year, there will be some annual meetings launched by the students' union which all the students can question the members of their performance throughout the year. During the process, the students frequently overlook that the school itself is the one holding the upmost authority within a school.

As a result, the power of the school expends, to an extent that the staff do not need to think of how to convince the students of the school's decisions as they know the students have to and are to comply anyway. The teachers who blindly stick to these rules are all accomplices to students' individual growth.

Failure of recognising this serious problem in the system is due to ignorance, while the refusal of change knowing the problem is an unenlightened behaviour. And it is self-abandoned for the students thinking that they will eventually graduate six to seven years later and that it will not affect their lives afterwards whether the school has made befitting response to students' views.

How does the school rules embody? This is the question worth thinking through. When one have suited in the "whatever" way of living, one will lose the vividness of life and there is no turning back.

You should know that teenagers are the only ones who will stand through the wind. The schools and teachers in this society wish you all students abandon your fearlessness, focus solely on studies and studies and pay no attention to them, given that there is forever more a natural conflict of interest between them and you.

If those who are young in age fear troubles and punishments and turn away from the question of life and death, the world will be at a standstill till Doomsday. And I, in line with lamentation, am swollen with anger!

Bill Chou: Patriotic Generation - Political mission for tertiary institutions in Macau

Patriotic Generation - Political mission for tertiary institution in Macau

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Bill Chou (仇國平)
Original: https://www.facebook.com/macauconcealers/photos/a.158212900914486.37247.153478958054547/766513590084411/?type=1 
[Bill Chou is the former associate professor of Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Macau]

(Photo Source: TDM)

According to the report of Macau Daily, Zhao Wei (趙偉), the Rector of University of Macau (UMac), asked teachers to be politically neutral, and fired me because I violated such regulation. Yet recently, Zhao Wei was slapped by the Tertiary Education Services Department (GAES) in the face – GAES will assess the performance of institutes of the tertiary education sector according to the standard of "Love country, love Macau". In other words, university teachers in Macau have to "uphold the banner of 'Love country, love Macau'", and cannot be "politically neutral".

GAES has issued a press release on 5th January 2015, saying that they will assess the ability of graduates according to six abilities, one of them being "Love country, love Macau". In the future, tertiary institutions will "enhance" patriotic education in terms of curriculum and co-curricular activities according to such assessment. When Chinese education authorities did not draw a clear line between the party and the country, the "patriotic standards" in Macau will have no choice but to be "par with" that in mainland China, probably including the "Seven Speak-nots" issued by the General Office of Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, that is, not allowed to mention historical mistakes made by CCP, universal values, freedom of press, citizens society, judicial independence and privileged capitalist class. In subjects like history and politics, teachers might not teach whatever they want. Politically incorrect or non-patriotic concepts might not be allowed in class.

This is absolutely not castle in the air. When I was still in UMac, I was asked by Wang Jianwei, the department head, to reduce the criticisms to public policies of China, and enhance criticisms on USA. And some students are hired by the school or department in order to supervise my speech in class. I once tried to hold a Xinjiang Policy Academic Symposium, but was halted by Wang Jianwei because of political sensitiveness. When "Love country, love Macau" became a yardstick in measuring graduates and effectiveness of universities, such intervention to academic freedom will become natural.

People always say, "Today's Macau will be tomorrow's Hong Kong". Under CCP, Hong Kong and Macau are under the same office, and the policy will be similar. Rao Geping, Basic Law Committee member and Peking University Law School professor, said Hong Kong needs "decolonised" education and students have to be instilled with "national awareness". Chen Zuo'er, president of Chinese Association on Hong Kong and Macao Studies (CAHKMS), said Secretary for Education should be under the supervision of Central Authorities. If Macau makes universities fitting in such patriotic education, it's hard to say HKSARG will not implement national education in primary, secondary and tertiary education.

======
Chinese version below, authorisation from reproduction acquired from Macau Concealors:
【愛瞞博客】澳門高等院校的政治任務: 打造愛國愛澳新一代 (一)

文：仇國平 （前澳門大學政府與行政學系副教授）

根據「澳門日報」報導，澳門大學校長趙偉說，要求教師政治中立，並因我教學政治不中立而解僱我。最近，趙偉被高等教育辦公室打嘴巴: 高教辦即將以學生的 「愛國愛澳」表現，評估高等院校的成效。換言之，日後大學教師教學要高舉愛國愛澳旗幟，絕不可以教學政治中立。

高教辦在1月5日發出新聞稿，指為了評估高等院校的成效，將會就六個學生能力範圍制訂指標，評估畢業生的黎波里能力。其中一個能力範圍，就是「愛國愛澳」。將來，當院校知道學生的愛國愛澳表現要接受當局評估，自然會在課程上以至課外活動，加強愛國教育。在現時中國的黨國一體下，澳門的愛國標準難免和內地接軌，包括有可能仿效中共中央辦公廳向大學下達的「七不講」指令，不能在課堂上講授中共的歷史錯誤、普世價值、新聞自由、公民社會、公民權利、司法獨立、權貴資產階級。歷史及政治等較具爭議的學科，教師不可隨意教授各種學說。被視為政治不正確、不愛國的觀念，可能不准向學生教授。

這絕不是危言聳聽: 當我還在澳大的時候，曾被系主任王建偉教授要求，減少對中國公共政策的批評，以及加強對美國的批評。而部份學生，被招攬為校方/ 系方監督教師在課堂上言論。另外，我曾經舉辦中國新疆政策學術研討會，被王建偉以政治敏感為由要求停辦。當「愛國愛澳」成為評估畢業生以至大學成效的指標，這些干預學術自由的舉動，便變的理所當然了。

坊間常說: 今日澳門，明日香港。港澳政策屬中共同一個政策系統，兩地政策部份互通有無。身兼基本法委員會委員的北京大學法學院教授饒戈平日前表示，香港需要推行「去殖民地化」教育，培養國家意識。前中國國務院港澳辦常務副主任、全國港澳研究會會長陳佐洱，香港教育局長要接受中央監督。倘若澳門成功在大學內推行「愛國愛澳」教育，難保港府以「去殖民地化」做幌子，在香港大中小學推行國民教育。

Gnimm: Christina Chan, You're right.

Christina Chan, You're right.

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Gnimm (逆嘶亭)
Original: http://gnimmm.com/2015/01/08/youreright/ 

When we mention Christina Chan Hau-man, most people will think of her sidetrack gossips on entertainment magazines. Now, as the situation deteriorates, she is now well-acclaimed as if she is an aggrieved prophet. She herself has long been despondent and stayed away from politics. This is the only result of a person who steps much forward the others. She took an arrow and shoot against "Greater China morons". And now the Snow Lion Banner of Tibet has less and less exposure.

Recently a video clip was uploaded. It was Christina participating in a protest on a tree. I felt sentimental. It was four years ago at night. She was skimpy, as the media described. She was holding a mic, condemning the "go-through-the-motions" formalism of 1st July demonstration. She asked the other protesters to reflect the effectiveness of standing out on streets, and said things that were not much understood at that time. She said, "Should we keep on doing so? We have to think why we are out here. If we do not escalate our action, then staying here will be nothing but a tradition like 1st July demonstration." I can barely hold back my emotions.

Tempus fugit. A 'prophet' is bound to bear such pains. She had to withdraw, long before the Umbrella Revolution, long before people made their own shields and burnt rubbish bins. She, after all, is just a person. We felt helpless when we saw leftards calling people to "vote and deliberate" in Mong Kok [trying to be leaders in the movement], and now it seems that we can do nothing to those totem-praising, "peaceful, rational, non-violence, non-swearing" (PRNN) "yellow ribbons". It is not difficult to imagine how much Christina had to bear, especially when she was on her own. She knew she needed to grab the attention from cameras, so she did use many new tactics, making herself on headlines of newspapers. She then became the target on the bull's eye.

In a calm manner, she said the truth, "Is it useful to do the formality again, just like last year?" Four years have passed, even after the largest scale of occupation in the history of Hong Kong, the majority of Hongkongers still do not understand this truth. In the clip, her friends held the gate outside the old Government HQ, and she called for support. Yet, some fake-allies urged all protesters returning to the original position and to sit and wait until they were carried away by the police, and stop blocking the gate. She was clever and daring, and knew the way such fake-allies act. She shouted, "Never retreat and hold our bottom lines!" Yet in the movement against the development of Northeast New Territories in 2014, Raphael Wong, one of the chief fake-allies, was so brazen-faced to say "People did not think so" in front of journalists to halt the kind of charging Christina proposed. All people who think they are fighting for democracy for Hong Kong owes Christina an apology, because we allow people like Raphael Wong to get in our way when he felt excited when protesters were getting arrested.

Also, the forlorn Christina Chan promoted an idea of self-determination, an idea that is still not understood by PRNN yellow-ribbons. From 1997 to 2003, from 2003 to 2010, from 2010 to 2014, we are still thinking the meaning of civil disobedience, and tarrying with legal wordings. Hongkongers have the priority in enjoying resources of Hong Kong, the final say to our population policies, the right to have one-person-one-vote in electing the government - these are still "not accommodating and fair" to many people who think they are rational. The internal affair of Hong Kong is not yet solved, then not to mention how the Communists suppress people in Xinjiang and Tibet.

"Amid such chaotic world, we have our responsibilities .... for stability maintenance/weiwen." These PRNN yellow-ribbons brandish themselves travelling, and stuck the yellow banner with "I want genuine universal suffrage" wherever they go. But in fact, they have not cherished those pioneers who carry responsibilities at the beginning. And the way they "embrace" democracy is, but, another kind of stability maintenance/weiwen. They do not mind "doing the formality again just like last year", nor doing origami of yellow paper umbrellas for many hours. They are merely jumping on the wagon, or a kind of Joneses mentality.

She did not join the revolution, nor she exposed herself. The revolution ended, not even smelling a scintilla of gunpowder. At the time, did anyone always bear the idea in mind - that continuous escalation of movement has to be continued everyday more radically than yesterday? No. Few were struggling, but the majority of the protesters were not convinced. Some even said "Policemen are our neighbours, the government is our archenemy". Eventually people wait, and tally, for an inconclusive end, which was executed by the batons of the so-called law enforcement agency.

So, her thorough withdrawal was right. Her time belongs to her. People in this place do not worth her precious decade to "enlighten" others. She is neither Albert Ho nor Lee Cheuk-yan, she could go to somewhere else and develop herself, and for those twerps who can stay in the political sphere for two decades, you may now be crystal clear about their "true colours".