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!

Future president of Egypt? What about Hong Kong?

I stumbled into this video the other day, and I couldn’t help but think “why isn’t a single Hong Kong child able to do this” (of course, there’s a big assumption here: the English subtitle is accurate).

The  people of Hong Kong are not encouraged for individual thinking. Education is all about reciting materials and getting good grades in exams. Back in the old days, the British Hong Kong government encouraged people to study but never encourage people to think independently. The Hong Kong SAR government, even worse! They inject the pro-Peking and pro-Communist thoughts into the students’ brains before they are old enough to “think”…

A so-called Basic Law handbook for primary school students says that Taiwan is China’s sacred land, and the Chief Executive of Hong Kong must “love China and love Hong Kong” – none of these are related to the Basic Law.

The worse I’ve seen so far is “Chief Executive enjoys a more superior legal status than the administrative, legislative and judicial functions of Hong Kong”. It also says “administrative, legislative and judicial functions balance each other’s power but also cooperate with each other, cooperation amongst these three functions is more important” – this is NONSENSE!! Separation of powers is what Hong Kong always practices, and there isn’t a need for cooperation between the three functions.

The younger generation in Hong Kong, thankfully, especially those who have not got a “professional” job tend to be more aware of the social issues – the reason, as I gathered, is that they are not afraid of rocking the boat. Those who have a high paid job and/or own properties worry about the property and stock market and stability of their jobs more than whether they have freedoms, democracy and fellow Hong Kongers’ livelihood (no formula powder for babies, sky high rent, expensive daily necessities, property hegemony, etc.).

They are very similar to the last generation of Hong Kongers who often nowadays say that the Brits did not give Hong Kong democracy (they would even say “you never had democracy and why suddenly want it now! we’ve got more freedom then before 1997). Epic fail in logic. Isn’t it? I am always in awe when they say this – since when democracy is something that’s given? It’s always something that people need to fight for. A metaphor: you never had anything but bake potato, and now you want more than just bake potato, you want a bit of corn beef as well! Why is not insane?

If Occupy Central is violent (breaking the law, woohooo!!), what about the protests in Turkey and Brazil? Blood was shed! The police in Hong Kong have become so bent that I do believe one day they will point their guns at the protesters (whether or not they can aim properly or know how to use their gun is another question). The convener of the Occupy Central movement did say though “if they see blood at the movement, they will retreat”. Without being prepared for the worst, there is no point to occupy anywhere. They still don’t understand that China will not back down unless you show to them that you have got the upper hand and have no fear. Chinese only bully those who are show weakness or weaker than them, fact! Have they done anything to Japan yet? No! Even though China’s been claiming that Senkaku Islands belong to them for all these years. If you engage China to negotiate, they will present you all the things that they want before speaking with you (just like what they did to the Brits in the 70s). By agreeing to their terms, means you’ve already lost half the negotiation – they know that you’re prepared to loose all of those they want. They can then try to take more from you and if it goes no where, they’d still get the “least they’re prepared to accept”, win-win situation for the Chinese. See?

Over and out

The Truth about China’s Brain-Washing Propaganda

Wang Dan, one of the student leaders at the Tiananmen Square in 1989 which ended with blood shed and the PRC government continues denying to-date, is now teaching in Taiwan and enjoying freedom that his fellow Chinese people can only dream about.

I do admire the courage of the student leaders demonstrated twenty some years ago, but to my disappointment none of them have done anything to “build a better China” so far…

Wang posted on his Facebook (which is banned in PRC) recently a letter he received from a university student, below is my translation:

Dear Mr. Wang,

I am a Mainland student from JieJiang, currently studying my bachelor degree in Taichung. I have been following you for a while, and I wanted to say something but not sure what to say. I have spent six months in Taiwan so far and have met a lot of great friends, and do not miss my home like many other freshmen because it’s great to live in Taiwan – including the orderly environment and welcoming nature of Taiwanese. However, I always avoid discussing Mainland’s issues with Taiwanese.

Take myself for example, there are a lot of things in the Mianland that I am not happy with (otherwise, I wouldn’t have wanted to study abroad); but after discussing with my Taiwanese classmates, firstly I find that they have been misled by the media and secondly (they have) some sort of “I can condemn (the government), but others cannot” mindset.

I had always been educated in the Mainland, when I visited my relatives in the US in high school, Chinese friends (here refers ethical Chinese) asks me if I think Taiwan is part of China. I answered with no hesitation “yes”, and they were shocked. Now that I’m here (in Taiwan), my answer has changed.

One summer, I met some excellent Hong Kong friends. They attended the 4/June vigil every year and never forget (what happened). Thanks to Hong Kongese. People and the government should be united on some circumstances, but others situations they should be standing at an opposite position. In terms of power, I believe no citizen wishes his government to have absolute power, which means he will have none. Under absolute power, if Hong Kong losses this kind of freedom, so will Taiwan.

I do not like people condemning how bad Mainland China is, because I find myself standing on the same side of the government (under this circumstances). My pride for my motherland’s development must not be destroyed by others. However, I do not want the Mainland government to continue enjoying such power, and feel that on this front individuals and the government are in confronting position. Unfortunately, I am now in Taiwan – with the freedom to think about all these, but have no means to make them happen.

In response to this Facebook post, Kay Lam (a Hong Kong commentator) wrote a piece entitled “Wang Dan Reveals the Truth behind Communist China’s Brainwash Propaganda”:

Wang Dan published a letter from a Mainland China student on his Facebook, saying that he’d hope people can understand the mentality of the Chinese younger generation, and further hope that everyone to “treat Mainland students nicely” but not push them back to the embrace of Communist China’s propaganda.

First, Mainland Chinese students believe that any media in the world is the same as Communist China’s – controlled and manipulated by the government. They refuse to believe in the repulsive realities in China, instead believes Hong Kongers and Taiwanese are misled by “anti-communist media”. In fact, to maximise the effect of brainwashing propaganda, Communist China started by acquiring Chinese language media across the world, and set up these “so-called foreign media” in other countries to repackage Communist China’s viewpoints as “foreign media’s viewpoints”, then import them into China. They, then, manipulate internet search engines and social media ranking, and broadcast these messages via numerous sub-websites in a multiple speed. They created this man-made “Bad money drives out good” environment, replacing the truth with fake news. As long as people cannot touch the media hegemony of Communist China, anti-brainwash is only a “castle in the air” and is never executable.

Second,  Mainland Chinese students have the mentality of “I can condemn (the government), others cannot”, “I do not like others to condemn how bad Mainland China is, because I’m with the government on this front”, “My pride of my motherland’s development must not be damaged by others”, etc. These sample quotes demonstrate that Mainland Chinese CAN NOT and DARE NOT to criticise the PRC government. In addition, they would not allow others to criticise the PRC government. In the end become the slaves of nationalism.

Third, Hong Kong’s 4/June vigils are not aiming at overthrowing Communist China’s tyranny, but a psychological opium that spread the illusion of “patriotic without being loyal to the communist party”. The Mainland Chinese student who wrote the letter is certain about Hong Kongers’ “love for China” (a commonly used phrase Commies use to describe their patriotism), and subtly criticises the “separatism power” including Taiwan independence. This clearly shows the celestial empire and unification mentality of China have entwined with the Party’s brainwash education, and became a non-negotiable bottom-line. They are, however, very honest with their action – they want to go to Taiwan and Hong Kong to breath the freedom, despite the fact that the wish to see “China’s unification” both verbally and in their mind. They refuse to believe and learn about the “unification” under Communist China’s dictatorship actually means the complete destruction of Hong Kong and Taiwan.

The above three points illustrate how frightening and thorough brainwashing is. To help Chinese students to understand the truth and break free from brainwashing is close to impossible. This also explains why Communist China has to push forward national education in Hong Kong, this is also the bottom-line of Hong Kong which “to give in to this means death”.

 

National Education Centre Asks Schools for Endorsement

Following on my previous post about National and Moral Education Curriculum, despite the fact that the Curriculum is quietly embedded in various subjects, the National Education Centre continues to work on establishing a new subject for students in Hong Kong in order to further brainwash children.

Above picture obtained from House News, for original article in Cantonese/Chinese, please refer to here.

The National Education Centre issued letters to all schools in Hong Kong, which provides a simple letter that says:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Since the National Education Centre always strives to promote national education and national quality education, I am happy to support the Centre to continue servicing the education sector and its continuous operation.

Best regards,

____________

Cheung Yui-Fai, a liberal studies teacher, posted the letter onto the Facebook page of National Education Parents’ Concern Group. As a committee member of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union, Cheung questioned the agenda behind the Centre’s letter – does this mean the biased National Education Curriculum is returning in full form (base on the “coincident” of the HKSAR government’s mentioned National Education in its Human Rights report which was submitted to the United Nation recently).

Cheung also added that the Centre has not done anything ever since the people won the “war” which forced the HKSAR government to “shelved” the curriculum.

On the second page of the letter issued by the Centre, a survey asked the schools if they have participate any of the activities organised by the Centre and what recommendations they have for the activities.

In the Human Rights report submitted to the United Nation, Chapter 2.21, says “This new initiative is expected to be implemented in the 2013/14 school year to further enhance the elements of national education”, and completely omitted the fact that the HKSAR government has announced the curriculum is shelved in September 2012.

HK Primary School Material: Cannot Call Onself Hong Konger – HK Newspaper

After the massive anti National & Moral Education Curriculum that forced the Hong Kong SAR government to “shelved” the curriculum, Ming Pao reveals on 3rd March 2013 that Hong Kong schools are brain washing primary school kids via different text books.

Summary of the article below:

Although the National & Moral Education is not a standalone subject in Hong Kong anymore after the months long protest led by Scholarism (formulated by school children), a lot of content about “identifying one’s recognition of China” is penetrating various subject in primary school subjects, including Chinese language, general studies and Mandarin.

Parents’ Concerns Group reviewed the top three most popular sets of primary school text books in Hong Kong and found that some materials deliberately emphasis the “expression of emotions”. A chapter called “Metaphor of Motherland”, one of the primary 5 Chinese language chapters, included a “patriotic poem”. The teacher handbook of this chapter says that teachers should instruct students to “use sonorous tone to slowly read the poem aloud, when reading out the character ‘country’, the final note of of the character should be lengthen (note: in Cantonese, as well as other Chinese languages, this means a strong emphasis of a term/word) in order to show one’s admiration and respect to the country (i.e. China)”. Another chapter described China’s national flag as something “that will listen attentively (to students)”.

In a General Studies textbook for primary 1 to 5 students, when it described the established of People’s Republic of China (PRC), it only sketchily mentioned Mao Zidong, the Chairman of China’s Communist Party found the PRC which became strong after many years. It omitted all the tragedies happened in between, including the Cultural Revolution and 4th June incident (also known as “Tiananmen Square massacre”).

In a primary 2 English General Studies textbook, when it explains nationality, the teacher handbook listed clearly that students should NOT called themselves “Hong Kong People” (i.e. Hong Kongers/Hong Kongese): “Many children call themselves HK people but this is not a correct concept. One should say “I am a Chinese citizen living in HK (direct quote from the handbook)“. Concern Group questioned that the teacher handbook clearly pointed out that “HK people” is a politically incorrect concept, and deny the identify of Hong Konger.

The chairman of a teachers group focuses on Liberal Studies in HK said that the evaluation forms of many study tours that go to China (PRC) focus on how students’ perception of China (PRC) change after the tours, but do not cover students’ genuine impressions.