When Western Media Covers HK – Why Do Many Caucasians Support Chinese but Condemn Hong Kongers?

Featured

I have been following this news about Hong Kong being most racist in the world, and so glad that the name of Hong Kong has been cleared after some tough work our friendly blogger did:

The western media does not seem to pay a lot of attention to HK except when HK is being condemned for being a racist country (please do not tell me calling Hong Kong a country isn’t PC). I have some rather difficult to digest thoughts to share:

  • Self-abased but self-important
    Chinese are ashamed of the history baggage they all share – being beaten at many wars by Japanese and Western countries. The low self-esteem amongst the Chinese is not spoken, they are not even aware of this problem. For example, when you asked them about WWII, all they focus on was Japan’s invasion and what a humiliation that was to China, but fail to discuss the war on a different level.
    They cannot face the deeply rooted problems Chinese all share, nor could they admit the problems and try to correct them (well detailed by Joe Chung’s book “I Don’t Want to be Chinese Again” – no English translation available yet. This book is banned, obviously, in China but have a lot of awakening facts and argument about Chinese people). The so called history baggage has been suppressing Chinese. However, given the recent decades of economic advancement, Chinese seem to have become extremely self-important because of the new wealth they have – just look at the luxury shops and see how they behave, as if “one can do anything he wants as long as he has money”. The extremely self-abased people are now loaded with money, a new tool for exploitation from an individual to a global level, they are not extremely self-important. “Extreme self-abased turns into extreme self-important” – a phrase Hong Kongers use on its own people
  • “Persecutory delusion”
    Chinese is tuned or trained to believe that they have been suffering from discrimination across the world and the western world, in particular, have mistreated Chinese for centuries. Every time there is any sort of incidents caused by their behaviour (for example, the formula powder shortage problem), Chinese would come out shouting they are being discriminated. This deeply rooted mindset cannot be changed. They enjoy being the powerless victims when things happen to them, because of the point below
  • White guilt
    Western world did start war in China, even colonised some Asian countries or imported Asian for cheap labours for decades. This somehow imposed a guilt amongst the Caucasians thinking they need to protect the “yellow skin fellows”
  • Who are Hong Kongers?
    Hong Kongers are seen by the Western world a more civialised country than China (because the British government had taught Hong Kongers a lot of universal values and simply because the world know that communist countries cannot work). Hence, Hong Kongers are being seen equals on the level of “social sophistication”. Unfortunately, because of the skin colour, Caucasians still can’t quite see Hong Kongers with yellow skin as their equals! Caucasians in general do think they are more superior than the coloured people – many deny and say this type of comment is racist. But I think people prefer to stick to those who are similar to themselves – in terms of appearance, believes, tradition, etc. We often generalise things, and judge people by their skin or they way they dress. Generalisation is built-in self-protection mechanism – we hang out with people look and behave similar to ourselves, so we know what to expect and what not to do, the most extreme is we stereotype others so that we will be extra carefully when we meet someone who looks and speaks differently than ourselves. Here’s a massive conflicts!
  • How should we treat Chinese?
    Because of the White Guilt, Caucasians want to save those “poor coloured people”. This fits perfectly when the Chinese love to promote their “victim” identity. Although they are not shy about their wealth, they have no problem emphasizing their imaginary victim identity which trigger the sympathy of kind-hearten people (may it be Caucasians or local Hong Kongers) – the people from Hong Kong (as said before, a more civilised country) must help educate the less educated and less civilised Chinese! Please remember, China’s economy is amongst the top three, the people who play this “victim” game aren’t those poor ones – they are the ones who can afford to travel around the world and buy expensive handbags, etc (a fantastic example here in recent news). However, the western world, perhaps being blinded by the White Guilt, yes, the Brits have taught the Hong Kongers a lot things (values, justice, honesty, etc), but back then the Brits have the absolute power, it was relatively easier for them. Now that China has Hong Kong’s sovereignty and has an upper hand over Hong Kong (the worst is many Hong Kongers believe that if it wasn’t for China, Hong Kong had died) Hong Kong, as a nation of 7 million people, is in no position to educate or transform China, a nation with 1.3 billion people.

**let me repeat one more time: the term “Chinese” in my blog when referring to human beings is “national Chinese” not “racial Chinese”**

Free Hong Kong is Back – 2014 New Year Resolution

It has been a while since I last posted here. The main reason for my taking a break is that I found myself too irritated by the things that are happening in Hong Kong, particularly the recent developments, e.g. universal suffrage debate, the racist immigration policy, new immigrants from China in a way have priorities when it comes to social welfare, etc.

After staying away from blogging for a little while, I have regained my strength to write again. During this break, I have done a lot of thinking, and decided to take a different approach. Let’s view this as my New Year resolution:

Instead of using this platform to vent my frustrations, I will start on commenting on political issues and Hong Kong affairs from a local Hong Konger’s point of view.

As a grass root individual, I see the impact of HKSAR government’s policies and the problems of Hong Kong from a different prospective to that of the politicians and middle and upper class individuals.

Even though “Hong Konger” isn’t a term being recognised by many (let alone understood) – at least we can’t find the term in an English dictionary – with the unique history of Hong Kong and the complex relations Hong Kong has with Britain and the PRC, Hong Kong and Hong Kongers deserve to be seen and heard more.

As mentioned in one of my previous posts, one should not rely on reports about Hong Kong in the news. Perhaps, without being exposed to the grass root life, the pre-1997 lifestyle, and without having the self-enlightenment gained from living and  breathing the subtle, but surely accelerating, changes, it is difficult for many (including Hong Kongers) to pin point the problems or feel the pain to witness our freedoms being eroded and China’s control and influence in Hong Kong – a supposedly autonomy city-state.

The style of my articles will probably be very different from now on, less snappy and angry, but more measured and I shall try to be more analytical.

I hope you will continue to enjoy my blog. Please leave me comments and let me know if you would like to hear my view (often citing the local grass root and younger generation’s views) on any particularly topics.

Beijing Subway Calls Uncivialised People Locusts

A while back, a bunch of Hong Kong netizens on Golden Forum raised some money to place a newspaper advertisement as a protest agsinst the colonisation of China/Chinese. The advertisement drew a lot of attention from the press worldwide. The majority of the Western press, as far as I recall, condemn the Hong Kongers for being racists (Mind you, the press says that we are the same race as Chinese though!).

After the advertisement was published, similar advertisements were “created” online. Including Weibo users from Shanghai and Guangzhou. They also hate those who invade their land! However, it seems to me that the press only target the Hong Kongers and kept slashing Hong Kongers…

Locusts is a “trending” term used by Hong Kongers. Not necessarily targeting Chinese, but referring to those who are uncivialised, particularly those who take advantage of the system of Hong Kong but at the same time say that they are not being treated equally or claim that “without China Hong Kong had already finished” – e.g. new immigrants have to wait for a few years before they can apply for social benefits is not exactly discriminatory, it’s just an administrative measure to prevent outsiders (or non-tax payers) from exploiting the system. Simple!

A few days ago, Beijing Subway posted a photo on their Weibo account, calling those who left their trains like a dump “LOCUSTS”!

Why hasn’t the Western media churned out reports saying that Peking folks are discriminating the people of China? Interesting, isn’t it? Same term referring to the same type of behaviours, used by two groups of people in different geographic locations… Does that mean that Hong Kong is in fact not part of China in their point of view? Or is it because “Hong Kongers being Hong Kongers is a sin”?

Yes, Hong Kong was developed way before China did. Yes, Hong Kongers enjoyed a better live compare to those in China since the 50s. But why is it our fault when we despise the uncivialised behaviours and welfare leeches?

Why is it wrong for the people of Hong Kong to defend our own system? Why is it wrong to fight for democracy?

Good fences make good neighbours! Protect Hong Kong from the invasion of China!

Over and Out!

Having More New Immigrants is the Solution to Aging Population?

Aging population is an issue faced by countries around the world, including Hong Kong. Before we try to “resolve” the problem, we ought to understand or at least learn why this problem arises. It occurs to me that the key reason is medical advancement – people live longer nowadays!

In history, baby booming is almost inevitable after a war. But why? I think the fundamental reason is to “resupply” the labour force (in a long run). But is aging population a genuine problem? Or is that a “created” problem the corporate want you and I to believe in?

Back to the problem closer to my heart, Hong Kong’s aging population.

Labour force is defined by the government, but it is somehow disconnected from the reality. Given the medical enhancement and globalisation (an increase of variety of highly nutritious food, for instant), shouldn’t we rethink about retirement age, hence “increasing” the labour force without actually having to increase the existing population? I’m sure many of you would agree that a lot of the old folks are in fact fully capable of carrying on working even after their retirement age. They also do have experience and skills that the younger generation can surely learn from.

Another thing that many pseudo left-wingers in Hong Kong claim contributes to the aging population is low birth rate. This also isn’t an unique phenomenon in Hong Kong. People tend not to have too many children nowadays. Mortality rate was very high in the old days, but this has been massively improved – medical advancement (once again) is a major reason, but we must not forget about the improved living condition and there has not been a “world war” for decades. Less likely babies are killed/died because of deceases or during war or malnutrition in the developed countries. Families no longer need to breed like their ancestors used to, in order to ensure one’s bloodline continues. The society nowadays do not need a lot of labour either, simply because of the technology advancement! Labour intensive industries are scarce.

The low birth rate in Hong Kong has many other contributing reasons too. As many of you across the world know that Hong Kongers work very hard regardless of which industry they are in. The living space in Hong Kong, is arguably one of the smallest in the world, mainly due to the property hegemony and the speculation driven real estate market in Hong Kong. Extremely high cost of living, from food and daily necessities to housing, couples have to work full time to be able to support their own family (as well as their parents in many cases), is another key factor. With the ever climbing inflation in admist of the stagnated pay rise, financial burden is huge to any young couple. Childcare is close to nonexistence in Hong Kong, too.

On top of the lack of work-life balance, limited space, time and financial flexibility, Hong Kong couples are reluctant to have multiple children. Even if they can afford having children, they have to face all sorts of “matters” when bringing their children up. Before a mother could sense the joy of becoming a mother, Hong Kong mothers need to worry about whether or not they can get a hospital space to give birth. If they are lucky enough to get one, they need to start worrying about getting formula powder for their babies (as said, with the busy work life, it is simply far too difficult to breast feed). When they are old enough to go to school, parents have to queue up outside kindergartens, primary schools and high schools for days just to get an application form from schools that involve at least an hour of commute.

Any responsible adult would consider all these factors before having children as one would only want the best they can provide to their children. Anyone with the slightest decency (and dignity) will refuse to rely on social welfare and benefits. Why would one even thinks about reproducing when one cannot be sure about being able to provide at least a comfortable childhood to one’s children?

Pseudo left-wingers in Hong Kong keep on saying that it is basic human rights for people to emigrate to other countries to secure a better living for themselves and their children. However, they fail to answer (if not dodge) the question most Hong Kongers have: isn’t it our rights to ensure our livelihood not being jeopradiesed by having uncontrollable amount of immigrants?

In any country in the world, immigration policies, one way or the other, will clearly state that immigrants have to be able to support their living (either having sufficient assets or having a job secured). Also, new immigrants are not eligible to enjoy social benefits for a certain period. This is to discourage welfare leeches from taking advantages of the benefits provided by the tax payers. This is not discrimination, but to ensure the sustainability of the country and system, as well as preventing conflicts between the locals and the new immigrants (one of the means, of course).

I agree (so do many Hong Kongers) that regardless of nationality, immigrants should be welcomed to Hong Kong – after all, Hong Kong is a melting pot! It is an undeniable fact that, however, we must have have full control over our population. When Hong Kong is so crowded, is it really wise to have more immigrants (in fact like Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said “Hong Kong has no population limit”), particularly those with low (or no) skills?

Population policy is a foundation of every policies within a country. It is not about having more people, but to strike a balance and to ensure a healthy composition of labour force that can support a sustainable economy and society.

Over and out!

20/Oct Demonstration – Justice for HKTV Hijacked by Pseudo Lift-wingers

The police in Hong Kong said there were 20,000 took it to the street yesterday, but being there from the early time (skipped the rally, but went straight to the Government Headquarter) to observe the flow, I am pretty sure that the number was closer to 80,000 or even 120,000.

Why did people take it to the street? According to BBC: “Thousands of people have taken to the streets of Hong Kong to protest against what they see as a lack of government transparency and accountability”. My attention was drawn to two words in this sentence “they see” – It’s either the journalist failed to investigate into the core of the issue, or they simply cannot be asked to report about Hong Kong properly. If that’s the case, do us all Hong Konger a favour, don’t report at all.

There’s a trend here, since the handover of sovereignty:

  • The HKSAR government dropped all charges against Sally Aw claiming that her prosecution involves “major public interest” and didn’t give any further explanation
  • Timothy Tong’s case is still lingering after all the evidence has been pulled out
  • The government continues to allow ATV to operate despite major scandals and horrendious quality of TV production (e.g. reporting a false exclusive story on Jiang Zemin’s death, producing close to zero programmes but repeatedly broadcasting the same shows over and over again for years)

Exactly why ATV still holds one of the two free-to-air TV channel licenses is beyond believe. Bear in mind the fact that HKTV only applied for an free-to-air TV license that does not take up any of the public air wave, meaning that even if HKTV can get the license, people won’t be able to watch any of the programmes without a decoder box.

The Executive Council refused to disclose details about the evaluation and claimed that it’s all confidential. When public interest is involved, the government has the obligation to disclose details to ensure that the fairness and transparency of the evaluation is understood. If there is nothing to hide, of course!

Reports have been leaked, and all pointing to the fact that the recommendation made by independent consultant(s) and Executive Council’s original proposal was to issue licenses to all three applicants, including HKTV. Why the sudden change of tune? Why only iCable and PCCW, two telecommunications giants that have pretty much dominated the industry for years, are granted the licenses?

Ricky Wong, HKTV’s founder, years ago founded CTI which basically targeted the telecommunications industry and forced the then monopoly, PCCW, to engage in a price war – introducing competition in the market and bring the service prices of  internet and international direct dial (IDD) down dramatically. We used to pay US$2 a minute for IDD back then if not more. Now, we can spend no more than US$0.1 a minute!

Combining the fact that Li Ka-shing, the ultimate owner of PCCW, had been saying to the market that he’s going to sell off a couple local businesses, including ParkNShop, which triggered the market’s nerves – IS LI KA-SHING RETREATING FROM HONG KONG?

Coincidentally, Li announced that he’s not selling ParkNShop after all, soon after the license was granted to PCCW.

This is only one conspiracy theory, but I believe there’s a lot more behind – the China government has no doubt be involved in the TV license matter. Why would China, which has been suppressing the language and the free thoughts of Hong Kongers, be happy to see a TV channel that only service the people of Hong Kong? Soft power can easily be created once again if Hong Kong’s TV drama became internationally recognised – back in the 70s and 80s, Hong Kong movies, TV series and songs were known to our neighbourhood countries (Japan, Malaysia, Korea, etc) as well as the Western countries. This has long gone.

Once again, I cannot help but start to feel the creepiness of this all – about how a tyrannical regime controls the people by altering the language and making it impossible for the people to think…

Mind you, as long as the Chinese government continue this global brainwashing programme, the free thinkers in the world will cease to exist… Doesn’t take too long, a couple of generations, all people fought for and democracy and freedoms that you and I cherish will perish.

I’m not sure if you’ve experienced a demonstration or a rally in Hong Kong. The script is pre-set, and that’s exactly why we still haven’t achieved anything from all these festival and weekend parades:

First people walk from Victoria Park or thereabout, then arrive at the Government Headquarter or China-Hong Kong Liaison Office, then shout slogans a little, then start singing songs (same old songs every year, including “Do you hear the people sing”, I kid you not), then the organiser would announce “Our voice has been heard. We’ve achieved interim progress. We shall continue to fight, but now that we should all rest before the next round of protest.”

There organisers are the pseudo lift-wingers (I’d try to write a bit more about this), that the Hong Kongers called them “left plastic”. “Plastic” in Cantonese is “Gaau1″, and it sounds just like 鳩 (Gau1), a rude word that refers to penis, but most often used to refer stupid, dumb and useless gits. So instead of “swearing”, we often call someone “plastic” if he/she does something dumb – the full term, in case you’re interested, is “Ngaang6 Gau1″, which literally means “hard plastic”.

Here’s the emotion icon for of calling someone “hard plastic”, widely used in Golden Forum, and can simply be replaced by this one :o)

So these “left plastics” aim at essentially achieving nothing – in any society with 100,000 people participating in a demonstration, it can essentially overthrow a government. Not in Hong Kong! These left plastics aim at raising money for themselves (obviously) and most importantly “raising their own profile” and created the illusion that they represent the people of Hong Kong, and the proxy of all social movements.

At the demonstration yesterday (20 Oct 2013), however, when two of these left plastics (they are new faces, as the public resentment against the well known left plastics grows) hijacked the stage of the HKTV staff (started encouraging people to leave the government HQ and proposed their “plans” as if they are in charge of the movement), someone went up to the stage and tell them to stand down and give the stage back to HKTV which should be in charge. This brave man has done a good job by telling them off, and was supported by many. There was a little incident happened at the same time that NO MEDIA reported – another young man went up to the stage and waved the pre-97 Hong Kong flag (with the union jack at the corner), and shouted “Hong Kong should declare independence!”.

Of course he was arrested#, but I wonder what happened to him?

Over and out

# Sorry, thanks to a reader’s comment, this chap was taken off stage, not arrested. Please see comment of this blog post

New Free-to-Air TV License – A Short Commentary

Tonight is probably the first ever time that the people of Hong Kong has achieved a Facebook record.

Over 160,000 “Likes” were recorded less than FIVE HOURS after the page the Support HKTV was created on Facebook when the HKSAR Government announced that two new licenses are issued to Now TV and iCable. The application submitted by HKTV, founded by Ricky Wong, was denied.

The HKSAR Government refused to give any explanation on why the license was not issued to HKTV despite it was the first to apply amongst the three companies and that the company has already produced a number of dramas (HKTV promised not to have a news channel). Over a billion USD has been invested by the founder of HKTV, and the HKSAR Government granted HKTV a plot of land to establish its filming and broadcasting facilities years ago. It is awkward for the government to encourage HKTV to invest and continue to invest in a new TV channel but denied its application after years of waiting (and during these years, the channel has not stopped to produce programmes that trailers and episodes have received public support).

Going through old news and information available, it seems that the reason is clear despite the fact that the government refused to give an explanation…

In 2008, Ricky Wong joint ATV (a local TV channel infamous for its blinded pro-China and communist stance) and declared that he’d undergo a major reform: “ATV is not going to be CCTV’s Channel 10″ and “ATV will not rely on advertisements placed by Chinese companies”. He was later on “resigned” from his position because of controversial comments he made.

This (not backing CCP/China) is something that surely would upset China, and it is in CCP’s nature not to forgive. So naturally, the HKSAR (aka HKSARCCP) Government would be told/informed/warned that a free-to-air TV license must not be issued to Ricky Wong, an “anti-revolutionary”! They want to get rid of him for good, so lured him to invest and it is possible that he would go bankrupt and HKTV will be gone – the set up of HKTV have essentially broke TVB’s monopoly (let’s face it, no one watches ATV really), actors left TVB because of the unfair and harsh contract terms (e.g. not allowed to speak Cantonese in any broadcasting channels even though many actors don’t speak Mandarin) – they stayed purely because there are no other options in the market.

For years, TVB and ATV are being accused of reporting news that are often taken out of context or sometimes have misleading/incorrect information. ATV, particularly, for its appalling productions (there aren’t many really), have been asked to close down for years – they broadcast the same programme over and over again for years, and repeat the same programmes within the same week. By controlling the media, the HKSAR Government essentially controls the way people think.

This is just a brief view on this news. Let’s see how this unfold.

Over and out!

Discrimination – a term being abused in HK and the importance of safeguarding Cantonese

Language is a key to not only civilisation, but also racial identity. It somehow put restrictions on the way you think.

As many know, Cantonese (UN recongised it as a language a while back) and English are the two official languages in Hong Kong. The majority of us speak both, mostly Cantonese in daily use. An interesting thing is, many Cantonese words used in Hong Kong (some in China use Cantonese, mainly in Guangdong) is derived directly from English. We also very often incorporate English words in our conversations too. Taxi drivers in Hong Kong can often speak a bit of English despite most of them have received very limited education.

So, as a newbie in Hong Kong, one would certainly be prepared to learn Cantonese – may not be fluent, but you should at least respect the local languages here.

If you are prepared to go to a local school, you will expect to be taught in Cantonese and English. That requires no explanation nor does it constitute any sort of discrimination.

Below are two clips with English subtitle:

Do you honestly think that using Cantonese for interviewing kindergartens in Hong Kong can be seen as discrimination? In universities, English is typically the language being used in lectures. Some courses, however, use Cantonese due to what is being taught at the course. If one choose to take up the Cantonese language lecture (there’s a Mandarin one, because there are too many Chinese studying in HK), could you blame the lecturer for using Cantonese as the medium of instruction? What I don’t understand is why did the university provide a Mandarin lecture specifically for Chinese students? It’s like an international student from France who study in the UK and he/she would naturally expect all lectures to be taught in English.

Discrimination is being used so very often in Hong Kong, particularly by the Chinese students and new immigrants. The thing is, many of the immigrants from China back in the days (early 40s to 60s), they only spoke their own dialects. They did, however, tried very hard to fit in and because they know if they didn’t fit in and learn the language, they would not be able to live in Hong Kong and find a job. This is simply logic. My parents, for example, were not aboriginal Hong Kongers. They also emigrated to Hong Kong decades ago (to flee from the Communists, of course). They never expected to not speak Cantonese and be able to survive in Hong Kong.

By having more and more Chinese immigrants who refuse to speak our language, Hong Kongers will become the minority and Cantonese will soon be lost. A language with thousands of years of history, yet has been modified over all these years. Cantonese in Hong Kong, in particular, changes rapidly – mainly due to the influence of British English and the colonial time.

One thing you’re probably not aware of if you do not read and write Cantonese, there are increasing number of terminologies have been changed into the Mandarin version, and are broadcast via TV channels (news and drama), radio channels, as well as newspapers. People are not aware of them if they’re not careful – 打造, for example, literally means “hit make”, is a term that’s been widely used in China. It is a newly created term to replace many words in Chinese languages, including ” 建造 (construct)”, “建設(build)”, “創造(create)”, etc.

This is a subtle change, but day by day, this kind of changes in use of word, replacement of terms will have tremendous impact to a race. Below is an abstract from the book 1984:

“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,” he added as an afterthought. (1.5.23, Syme)

As I said up front, language in a way constructs the way we think…

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” (1.5.23, Syme)

Just leave this to you to think…

Over and out!