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

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”**

Advertisement

Umbrella Revolution – People Aren’t Fighting for Democracy

Umbrella Revolution – People Aren’t Fighting for Democracy

Source: The Atlantic

This is an article that will upset many, but I intend to be blunt so that we can be brutally honest with ourselves. I deliberately used this controversial title for one reason: if we support the Umbrella Revolution, we ought to ask ourselves why we are supporting it and how we should continue to support it until the battle is won. From the bottom of your heart of hearts, do you support the protesters because they fight for democracy – something that you cannot object to because it is a ‘beautiful notion’ that decent men with any conscience should support? Or was it because what they have been fighting for was violently suppressed?

Democracy, a universal value (some may label it as ‘something many who do not enjoy it, strive for’), is no different from any other aspiration: something that the minority fights for (whilst another minority stand and watch, if not contest or object), and the majority enjoys the benefits in the end on the back of the cost to, and sacrifices of, many.

Looking Back

After over two months since the Umbrella Revolution began (the name of this movement is another issue I would like to address later), it is necessary for us to do a recap and perhaps reflect on what the people of Hong Kong have done.

The students began a class boycott in late September 2014. The public’s response was lukewarm: fight the good fight; that’s a good cause; the future belongs to the younger generations. Not until a small group of students (led by Scholarism) escalated their action by climbing through the metres-high fences surrounding ‘civic square’ outside the Central Government Offices, occupying it, and Joshua Wong and his fellow colleagues from Scholarism were arrested and detained for over 40 hours, did the public begin to say ‘wow! Look at the students! We should support them’. The turning point, however, was 28th September when not only pepper spray but teargas canisters were fired at the protesters. People were outraged.

So, what were the people really supporting? The high profile students who were arrested for fighting for democracy, or democracy and freedom? That is a question we need to ask ourselves: If we were supporting the students, we should be led by the students regardless of what they do afterwards (dissasemble or continue); but if we were supporting the notion (democracy and freedom) we should have joined them, or even taken their places to fight on the front line of this battle: after all, the students and the adults who were there at the beginning have suffered from teargas and pepper spray, and it was time for those who have been hiding behind the students to step up.

Most people joining the protest and occupation were responding to the 87 teargas canisters. They didn’t care about democratic progress: At least they believe that if China doesn’t give it to Hong Kong, Hong Kong cannot have it (so we have to ‘ask’ China nicely). Many think that this is a waste of time (why would China ‘give’ Hongkongers democracy?). These activists only went to join the protest because it is moral to support the weak (i.e. the students and adults who faced the teargas canisters with no protection) and democracy is like a holy grail that everyone should support and strive for. This conduct is no different to that we see from the politicians and world leaders who pay lip service on a daily basis.

If you think you are supporting the fight for democracy and freedom, let me ask you one question: do remember what is the one thing that people on the street say? It wasn’t ‘the students have demonstrated to us that freedom and democracy are worth fighting for, and we see hope, and we need to regain control over our future and our children’s future’ etc. It was ‘Protect the students!’

Protesters in Masks = Moles?

After over a month of deadlock (occupying Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok with no results as the Government refused to engage in any meaningful dialogue with student representatives from Hong Kong Federation of Students [Scholarism is not included]), there are a number of incidents whereby unknown individuals (by unknown, I am referring to ordinary people who could well be students judging from the photos and videos, wearing masks and/or protective gear instead of high profile student ‘leaders’ from Hong Kong Federation of Students or Scholarism) tried to escalate the action by expanding the “occupy” zone (blocking a footbridge outside Government headquarters with the aim of stopping the Government’s operation) and even attempting to break into the LegCo.

There are lots of people who have condemned these individuals for creating conflict or clashing with LegCo, and heavily criticised them for wearing masks. Their reason was ‘if you think you’re doing the right thing, why wear a mask?’. It sounds logical, but this brings out a much deeper question.

The Umbrella Revolution has been going on for over two months, and none of the original goals set by the students’ leaders has been achieved (genuine universal suffrage, withdrawal of NPC’s framework announced on 31/Aug, abolishment of Functional Constituencies). The Government’s tactic is simple: Ignore the people and get rid of the people (the police have used unnecessary force to beat up peaceful protesters who were not threatening them, or civic society) instead of the resolving the core problems – a common tactic used by oligarchies and autocracies.

The people who believe that continuing this deadlock will not only lead the movement nowhere, but will also damage the democratisation of Hong Kong in the long run, want to advance to the next stage. Their reason is simple: If the Government ignores people who are peaceful and orderly, the people need to force the Government to respond by escalating their action and putting more pressure on the Government.

Let us examine why these individuals wear masks: Local political groups and ‘professional activists’ have condemned these individuals for wearing masks and labelled them as moles – with the aim of discrediting the movement and causing chaos. The true reason, as far as I can gather (and logically deduce) is that, they do not want to be arrested. The high profile student leaders or those who work for the student groups, are protected by the pan-democrats: if anything happens to them, because the limelight is constantly focusing on them, the adults from the pan-dem camp will have to provide support, especially legal support.

Do you remember the young man (Ah Lung) who was beaten up by the police and suffered from a fractured bone and lost sensation in his right leg? Because he is a ‘nobody’, the support from the politicians and activists is close to none. Six young men were arrested by the police after the clash outside LegCo on 19th November: volunteers who provided legal support since the beginning of the Umbrella Revolution publicly announced that they would not provide legal support to them. Under the Common Law system, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. By what right do these volunteers deny these protesters’ request for help? Let us put it this way: if Joshua Wong or Alex Chow was arrested in this clash (whether or not they were actively involved), would these volunteers still have sneeringly refused to help? I very much doubt it. The public, these volunteers, politicians and professional activists (who may have been charged or convicted a few times, hence wear a badge that labels them as active seekers of justice, and frontline fighters) assume these high profile student leaders (in fact their own people) are innocent and would defend and provide support regardless of situation. Did Joshua Wong break the law by climbing the fence in late September? Did any of the politicians and volunteers come out and condemn him for his ‘reckless behaviour’? Because he successfully brought the movement to the peak and attracted the public’s attention, his law-breaking was immediately forgiven by the public.

Wearing a mask is not a crime, nor is it immoral. When in a protest, the leaders are of course risking their personal safety, but they also have unconditional support and protection from the many and are forgiven eventually, if not immediately: an outcome which unknown individuals like you and I can never dream of. I do agree that these individuals may not have sophisticated tactics nor have planned out every single detail of their action. However, what causes the failure of these various escalation attempts? The lack of support from the crowd who are obsessed with the ultimate power of the high profile ‘leaders’ and the illusion that these ‘leaders’ have absolute purity and that they can commit no evil – these ‘followers’, however, are capable of legitimising the crimes ‘leaders’ commit because they are ‘leaders’. If they upheld the law on 28th September the way they did on 19th November, Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and all the other students who stormed into the ‘forbidden land’ outside the Government headquarters would have been tied up and handed to the police. Is this by any chance a double standard, or hypocrisy? Yes, this is a brutal and harsh analysis, but I did warn you at the beginning.

I have been to all the protest sites, and I stay low (and, yes, wear a mask). I need to! After all, unlike the high profile individuals, if I get arrested (under the law which limits people’s right to protest in Hong Kong this movement is illegal) I don’t know who will come to help. A friend of mine who happened to be in Lung Wo Road on the night Ken Tsang was beaten up by seven police officers was also beaten up by the police and subsequently arrested: no volunteers ‘rescued’ him despite multiple calls being made to the listed volunteer lawyers – luckily he was released without charge. Of course there are a limited number of volunteers who could help, but the limitation does not seem to apply when a high profile individual is in trouble.

Have you seen this cartoon?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10801656_1616837288543892_936153257259961380_n.jpg?oh=aa6766bdaf5c86c3bb9f71fdfdae8d0e&oe=550C6146&__gda__=1427498231_01984fbdd8bfb47d99e5961153ee7b8c

The pan-Dems supported the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan earlier this year (some even flew to Taiwan after the students broke into the Legislative Yuan), they did not however show any support to the ‘radical’ protesters on 19th November: they even denied their request for help), but instead they rushed out to condemn the ‘violence’. These pan-Dems did nothing after Ah Lung was beaten up by the police which caused him to lose sensation in his right leg. However, they jumped up and down after Ken Tsang, a member of the Civic Party, was beaten by the police and after the student leaders were arrested. See the pattern there? Can you now see why the non-high-profile individuals prefer to remain anonymous?

Here is a commentary written by a young commentator in June this year which talks about exactly this: http://hkcolumn.blogspot.hk/2014/06/wing-opportunists-awesome-taiwan-moves.html

Remember the people in China back in 1989? The pan-Democrats even today are still praising them as freedom fighters. The student leaders then, who are now safely living in free countries are heroes even though many of them have given up fighting. Perhaps they have aged and their fire and passion have gone. However, the cause that the people in Hong Kong are fighting for now is no different from the cause they fought for, and for which so many paid the ultimate price. Shouldn’t the student leaders in Hong Kong now deserve a bit more praise from the pan-democrats instead of being condemned for breaking a couple of glass windows?

You’ve made your point, time to go home

Many have been saying since early October that the students have expressed their opinions, won the hearts of the international press, and that they should now retreat for a few reasons: (1) personal safety; (2) to demonstrate leadership; (3) to win the PR war and gain more support; (4) this will be a long battle (so conserve your strength); and (5) to gain support from those who are neutral or anti-”occupy”.

Let’s look at those reasons in order: Firstly, those who have been protesting for the past two months and more have risked their personal safety: Especially those who have faced attacks from the ‘Blue Ribbons’ (civilian wearers of blue ribbons in support of the police, as opposed to yellow-ribbon-wearing “occupy” supporters) and the police. They have become much stronger than before the “occupy” movement began – not only the adults who answered the call of the students, but the students too. We should not underestimate their will, strength and determination. We all know that not everyone stationed themselves at the protest sites every day, but time and time again we have seen that whenever police brutality happened and when the “occupy” sites were compromised by either Blue Ribbons or injunction orders, people regrouped and reinforcements emerged.

The second reason is irrelevant as protesters have stressed repeatedly over the past weeks that there is no leader of this movement. Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) and Scholarism are not always in sync when it comes to next step HKFS didn’t know about, nor agree with, the latest hunger strike led by Scholarism (HKFS is closely connected with Democratic Party and League of Social Democrats – two frontline parties that wear badges of ‘being arrested’ as medals and always dissolve movements and disperse protests), although not all protesters would obey their ‘demands’ and ‘calls’. On the other hand, reinforcements appeared every time clashes happened and protesters always automatically passed personal protective gear to the front line – without any prior arrangements or orders – when the police were seen putting on their gear: The unspoken coordination and sense of brotherhood (looking after each other) amongst the protesters is unbelievable. The ones who are desperately trying to gain leadership are the pan-Dems and politicians, please refer to this article.

Thirdly: The PR war had already been won on 28th September and the week after. Thanks to the protesters who faced the pepper spray, teargas and truncheons empty-handed, and the students and volunteers who have demonstrated their patience, absolute self-control and their love for Hong Kong by keeping the “occupy” sites tidy and orderly and by creating amazing art work. The world is watching as many news reports across the world have shown us over the months. Hongkongers are freaking nice, as news report said. How many more PR wars do we need to win? Or are these people struggling to deal with the reality that it is not the protesters who need to win the PR war but the Hong Kong SAR (HKSAR) Government? The HKSAR Government has lost its legitimacy (by abusing its power to remain silent and mobilising the police force, yet blaming the occupiers for ruining Hong Kong, just to name a few examples), as has the Chinese Government sitting in Peking: the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s annual report; the congressional hearing in the US, and; the UK Government’s review of the Joint Declaration all point at China’s failure to uphold the Joint Declaration – but in diplomatic language. We must remember that it is the Government which refuses to listen and to respond. If we are out on the streets for weeks just to voice our opinion (i.e. we are not going to achieve what we believe in), then we may as well send a letter or an email. So much easier!

Fourthly: It is of course true that this will be a long battle. Hong Kong has been fighting for democracy for over 30 years, and in particular after the handover in 1997. How much have we achieved? NOTHING! The Peking Government offered Hongkongers – after denying our constitutional rights twice by ‘reinterpreting’ the constitution – a step backward on democratic progress by limiting our right to be elected and to vote. If the Umbrella Revolution does not bear fruit, I guarantee to you that the remaining freedom Hongkongers enjoy will be gone in no time – China’s Government has to tighten its grip on Hong Kong before it ignites a revolution that it cannot contain (China remains relatively quiet so far because of the internal problems they face, particularly the economic problems as well as the power struggle between the Jiang Zemin and Xi Jinping factions – the anti-corruption campaign is all smoke-and-mirrors to conceal Xi’s attempt to remove all of Jiang’s minions).

Fifthly: To gain support from political apathy is not impossible. However, given what has happened so far (police brutality especially), it is something that will not happen in our lifetime. We have to remember one very important thing: the majority always enjoys the benefits of things that the minority fights for with their tears and blood. Has the majority of the people in Hong Kong not experienced enough suppression and suffering in their daily lives? For example, in the last few years we have seen:

• an uncontrollable influx of immigrants from China;
• sky-rocketing property prices;
• salary increases which are always outpaced by inflation;
• some of the longest working hours in the world;
• the most crowded living-space in the world;
• non-stop violence in the legislature caused by the pro-China legislators;
• repeated betrayals by legislators and activists who put the livelihood of Chinese and new immigrants before Hongkongers;
• billions of dollars in donations sent to China with no one monitoring the use of the funds;
• a biased social welfare system (e.g. only Chinese immigrants can apply for CSSA (social benefits) a year after they choose to move to Hong Kong whilst immigrants of other ethnicities have to queue and local Hongkongers have close to no support from the Government);
• mega infrastructure projects that keep sucking taxpayers’ money like black holes;
• a lack of hospital space;
• a lack of public housing for the underprivileged;
• a lack of school places from kindergarten all the way to university;
• Chinese smugglers who occupy neighbourhoods every day;
• the loss of local shops as rents have sky-rocketed over the past 17 years;
• neighbourhoods being filled by chemists, cosmetic shops, jewelry shops and luxurious brands;
• ever-worsening pollution;
• the loss of farmland and greenbelt zones caused by collusion between Government and property developers and villagers;

The list could go on for another three pages.

With all of these issues getting worse by the day, Hong Kong has become unlivable as most people can never see a future for themselves and their families unless they are extremely rich, extremely poor, or holding a foreign passport. Hongkongers have been living in ‘peace’ for too long, and have forgotten that life is not merely about bread and water but also about dignity. Politicians of course will stress the former, as most people are too busy ensuring their basic survival to worry about their future and that of their children. Keeping people busy with their daily struggle for survival eliminates their will to think and rebel. Again, it is up to the minority who has awoken to fight for the majority.

The anti-”occupy” people are those who (1) have business interests in China and dare not burn bridges; (2) have foreign passport, aka have an escape route when the proverbial hits the fan; (3) cannot tell the difference between living as slaves and living as a free man, hence making a few hundred Hong Kong dollars to beat protesters up is not against their conscience. They will NEVER support the cause, let along join the cause.

Problems and Dilemma

Hongkongers are obsessed with the idea of being law-abiding and peaceful. I am by no means suggesting that we should all break laws and start robbing or killing, what I want to raise is that laws are supposed to be drafted with the aim of protecting the people who have the right to scrap laws which are unjust or will drastically damage the society, and to remove those individuals in power when they create laws to serve their own interests.

Protests in Hong Kong since decades ago have been peaceful, powerful and meaningless: powerful in terms of creating dramatic images for the media to insert into their articles for a couple of days, but at the same time meaningless. The 1967 riot started by communists in Hong Kong was a different case, which contributed massively to the Hongkongers’ obsession with ‘absolutely peaceful demonstration’, and uprooted the people’s willingness to self-defence: the violence of those protests, combined with the police action against them made the majority of Hongkongers believe that the police are there to protect civilians by arresting protesters.

How do we define violence? It is a relative term in respect of the Umbrella Revolution. Remember who were the people that charged into the cordoned-off area outside Government Headquarters? Students. Breaking into the cordoned area could be seen as a kind of violence: Have the pan-Dems or those who support the ‘movement’ condemned the students? When masked individuals (regardless of age) attempted to break into LegCo, the pan-Dems denounced them, and some even said that this movement is not about the LegCo. Isn’t LegCo part of the faulty system which allows bills to be passed against the people’s will? Taiwanese protesters occupied their legislature and succeeded in forcing the Government to listen. Escalating the action is a must when the Government refuses to face the people, but where is the support? Most just stand still and wait for those who take action to be arrested or beaten by the police. The most outrageous thing is that the pan-Dems called a press conference to condemn the protesters’actions. After weeks of police beating civilians and violating regulations, if the pan-Dems genuinely supported the people, they should have at least remained silent. Contrast breaking a glass panel with breaking an arm or a head: which one is more severe? As long as you are a student leader, politicians and lawyers will rush out to help, but if you’re not part of their ‘tribe’ it seems that you are not worth saving. The volunteer lawyers have demonstrated that this is their view by refusing help time and again, or by not responding at all to requests for help from non-high-profile protesters as mentioned above.

Well-behaved, tidy and non-violent are amazing traits to have when you want to voice your opinions and discontent to a Government that listens to and responds to the people. However, after two months of a classroom-style ‘absolute purity’ occupation that bears zero fruit (besides sympathy and the ‘we’re very proud to see your peaceful demonstration’ plaudits from across the world), besides escalating action, there is no way out – except to leave and concede defeat. Do not believe in the illusion that people will have the same passion and determination again – or you overestimate Hongkongers. After all the beating, arrest and exhaustion, Hongkongers will not be ready for another fight anytime soon – yes you may say that it took Gandhi decades to succeed, but the situation back then in India was not quite the same, and China is only going to tighten its grip on Hong Kong. When this is over, Article 23 will be one of the first things to be passed (LegCo is dominated by pro-China minions and their ability to ‘mobilise’ voters is like magic).

The obsession with ‘absolute purity’ and ‘absolutely peaceful demonstration’ is the reason for this deadlock. How many people praise the HKFS representatives for ‘attempting’ to fly to Peking to express their opinions and Hongkongers’ desire for democracy? Deep down we all knew that they would not succeed. What result did this visit bring besides demonstrating the very fact that China can deny Hongkongers entry by simply voiding our travel permits? This is no news, as demonstrated by multiple outspoken individuals and activists. The most important but completely neglected fact is that HKFS’ action undermined the 1-Country 2-Systems principle embodied in the Basic Law: Hong Kong’s electoral reform is not China’s business, as stipulated in the Basic Law (China is only responsible for Hong Kong’s foreign affairs and defence). Proactively seeking China’s approval instead of denouncing China’s blatant violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is not only politically inaccurate but also highlights another major problem many Hongkongers have: people outside of Hong Kong, supporters of the Umbrella Revolution, student leaders, politicians and professional activists all assert that China has absolute control over Hong Kong, even though this is not, and should not be, the case (political ignorance).

The civil disobedience displayed throughout the Umbrella Revolution is extremely different from what civil disobedience should be about: rejecting the dictacts of a dysfunctional and corrupt Government – including all the departments under the Government and the entire system that surrounds this Government (including the judiciary). A Government’s power is derived from and authorized by the people: Obeying a tyrant’s orders contradicts the notion of ‘disobedience’ right from the start: passive resistance is the bare minimum – not cooperating with the authorities. The worst is to tip off the police to arrest other protesters who resist or escape from arrest. Just to remind you: The Labour Party, Democratic Party and Civic Party are all guilty in this sense.

The Real Problem

The real problem in Hong Kong is that HKSAR Government is a puppet of the autocratic Chinese Communist Party, operating without Hongkongers’ endorsement (Hongkongers were not consulted when Britain decided to hand Hong Kong over to China), and any form of ‘referendum’ that is endorsed by an autocratic regime China Communist Party (CCP) can never be democratic. The idea of turning oneself in, which Benny Tai (convenor of Occupy Central with Love and Peace) started preaching over two years ago, is simply stupid. Would you turn yourself in when you know the regime is a fascist dictatorship? You would in Hong Kong if you are a high-profile individual, because that would give you the most memorable credential on your political CV. A criminal record ‘achieved’ in a ‘people’s movement’ is a gold medal that secures votes.

As long as we kneel down and succumb to the authority of ‘the Government’ and believe that the life and death of Hong Kong depends on China and the HKSAR Government, instead of believing in the people – who are the source of power in any society – we will never succeed. HKFS said up front that they do not intend to overthrow the Government, despite the fact that the Government is dysfunctional (they implement policies that harm Hongkongers more than help us) and is not legitimate (without any endorsement by the people), the demand for democratic election is empty. No tyrant would want their people to have freedom and democracy as the lack of both is the foundation of their continued existence and control over the people.

Have you seen the movie ‘Gladiator’? I cannot help but think that Hongkongers are like the gladiators at the Coliseum. Audiences shout when gladiators get beaten even though they do not favour the regime nor the freedom fighters – they simply enjoy the show as the lives and futures of the gladiators are irrelevant to them. Reading about the protest in the news is blood-boiling to some, particularly when it comes to police brutality. However, the world is watching Hong Kong like visitors at the zoo watch animals in cages.

Turning oneself in as suggested by Benny Tai and the student leaders, resembles a gladiator getting killed at the Coliseum – people will say ‘wow! What a hero! That is a good fight!’ Two minutes later, they would continue indulging themselves in this bloody murder. Those who despise this brutality would put up a sign or two saying that the gladiators should be freed, but would these ‘conscientious objectors’ continue to fight for the gladiators should the regime order them to disperse? Would they risk their lives to save the gladiators? There may be a few who would stand up and show support, but they would never swap their places with the gladiators, for human beings are selfish (there are isolated cases of truly heroic individuals who will sacrifice themselves for others but they are the absolute minority).

The fundamental problem is gladiators being trapped and forced to fight at the Coliseum because of the regime. A regime that is brutal, inhumane and fearless because it can take lives any time it pleases. The regime knows that there will be no one who would dare to resolve the fundamental problem – getting rid of the regime. Even if there is one (returning to my point about the majority always sitting back and waiting for things to unfold, and enjoying the benefits should the minority succeed), the regime is capable of getting rid of them – with or without any dirty trickery.

If you succeed, the world will worship you as hero without mentioning how much support they have given. History will tell whether what is currently going on in Hong Kong will be praised in the decades to come. Only winners are recorded in history – and they tend to be described as saints (even though they might have engaged in terrorism as defined by the modern world, for example, Mandela’s ANC founded Umkhonto We Sizwe). Those who lose revolutions are almost always forgotten or labelled as terrorists and extremists. History is written by the victors.

Ignorance and cowardice

Students and youngsters are the frontline fighters of the Umbrella Revolution. What have the adults done? Some have marched to condemn the violence against protesters. What good does that do? The same old peaceful method has been tried thousands of times. Hongkongers are obsessed with the tried and failed method: peaceful demonstration. In any part of the world, if the police (or the army) beat peaceful protesters (especially students) adults would be angry enough to take over the fight and do the dirty work for the students. Hongkongers are cowards – hiding behind the students and giving verbal support, yet condemning those who want to take the next step.

It is common sense that each individual ally counts. Hongkongers’ obsession with peacefulness has suppressed their basic instincts and common sense: when someone attacks you, your basic instinct is to defend yourself or even fight back. When someone attempts to take one of your fellow protesters away, your basic instinct should be to make sure s/he does not get taken away. Out of all the clashes between the police and protesters, only a very limited number of people seem to have these basic instincts: they typically just stood there and let the beatings continue or shouted ‘release’ without actually helping those arrested.

Hongkongers have repeatedly demonstrated their restraint when facing police brutality (the force applied to protesters has been totally unjustifiable). What more are they hoping to demonstrate by refusing to defend, and calling those who use shields ‘moles’? The two types of politicians (pan-Dems and pro-China) in Hong Kong are utterly pathetic: I have no doubt that anyone with the slightest sense will have no problem seeing the stupidity of the pro-China politicians when they show support to the police and Government, but the pan-Dems are great at using the term ‘pro-democracy’ to window-dress their actions which contradict common sense (as a protester, do not defend yourself, but sit and wait for arrest, etc) – you protest because you want to win, not because you want to make a point and go home without achieving anything. When a method fails, we ought to come up with a new plan: Escalation is the only way to bring down a dictator.

Democracy is not perfect

Of course we know that democracy is not perfect (indeed, to extemporise on Churchill: you would have to be an idiot to believe that democracy is the ultimate solution to all problems). It is not perfect, but it at least gives you the right to vote those in power out of office if they fail the people.

Another argument, particularly popular amongst Americans and English, is that politicians around the world are corrupt, and that democracy will lead Hong Kong to failure. Because they have failed, others should not try to perfect democracy? Is this some sort of ‘superiority’ syndrome?

The final premise: China is so powerful. Without China Hong Kong would cease to exist (no water, no food, no electricity, China can roll tanks out to Hong Kong, etc). Hong Kong taxpayers pay obscene amounts of money to buy water from China (a contract that states that Hong Kong cannot reduce the purchase quantity). This water subsequently requires a lot of treatment before it is safe for consumption. On average, we pay over 100 times more to buy water from China than Singapore pays to buy water from Malaysia. China is struggling to supply water to itself (hence their occupation of Tibet), by stopping buying (I REPEAT BUYING) water from China, Hongkongers would be doing China a massive favour: let us deal with our problem, thank you very much. Food supply: how many times have we read about the high levels of harmful substances in food imported from China? Fresh pork and beef supplies to Hong Kong have been monopolised for decades, if the monopoly (backed by the HKSAR Government) ceased to exist, imports of meat from around the world could easily replace the existing deliberately-created-dependence on China’s supply. In fact, if you go to the supermarkets, most of the food comes from around the world (rice, for example, is mainly from Thailand). Is reliance real or is it propaganda which China and the HKSAR Government have been promoting? Given that RMB is not a freely-floated currency and that China’s systems are not trusted by the outside world, Hong Kong is still the gateway for China when it comes to money laundering, accessing international investors and emigration (HKSAR passport vs China passport).

China will not give democracy to Hong Kong

This is absolutely true: why would a tyrant give its people freedom and democracy? I have addressed this before: Another important thing is that democracy is not given and begging will not grant you freedom and democracy. No democracy in this world is given, it has always been, and always will be, fought for by the people. Discouraging those who dare to dream and want to fight for it is no different from any tyrant. By standing and supporting the suppression, one is as guilty as the suppressor.

Umbrella Revolution vs. Umbrella Movement

The term ‘Umbrella Revolution’ first came about when the media captured students and protesters trying to shield themselves with umbrellas from pepper spray and teargas fired by the police. No better example of a David-and-Goliath battle could be described. However, a large number of professional protesters and ‘politicians’ (who people call ‘left-plastics’(jou2 gau1) in Cantonese or ‘leftards’ in English) immediately downgraded it to ‘Umbrella Movement’ as they claimed that (a) we must not upset China, and that (b) revolution is always associated with violence and blood. Because of their extremely organised and systematic propaganda (e.g. Facebook groups and Twitter campaigns), the name of this historical protest was changed. There are two things I want to raise about the ‘name change’: (1) China is upset whenever someone refuses to obey (including countries), calling it a ‘revolution’ or a ‘movement’ will not change how China perceives what is happening in Hong Kong – an anti-CCP protest. However, China will not send PLA to deal with it openly as it will give the world reason to withdraw investments and business from Hong Kong, which will damage China (Hong Kong is the gateway for China to access foreign capital and China needs capital now more than ever due to the economic slowdown and substantial internal, often off-balance-sheet debt), with Hong Kong-Shanghai Stock Connect in place, Hong Kong’s position and safety is stronger than ever: Despite all the naughty Hongkongers’ less than satisfying behaviour, China did not pull the programme to ‘punish’ Hong Kong because it needs Hong Kong’s mature financial system to save China’s economy. (2) Revolution is originally from the Latin word ‘revolvere’ which means ‘to turn around’. It refers to a fundamental change in power or organisational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. It signifies a major change, but not necessarily a bloody event, for example, the Industrial Revolution. Words change how people think, hence control their actions. By offering people knowledge and understanding of their current actions, and terminology to describe them, you liberate their minds: Hence people are more likely to respond to counter-actions logically, simply because we are all individuals with free will.

Negotiating with China: know how to bargain

Sir Richard Ottaway, the Chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said in the 2nd December House of Commons Emergency Debate that a China official had told him that the Sino-British Joint Declaration was void after the handover took place on 1st July, 1997. This is one example of many showing that contract, honour and promises mean nothing to China (and its people). They care about power and money, especially the latter as money ensures power and privileges even in the face of the law (and not only within China).

China and its people will only back down when someone shows them s/he is not afraid of taking a strong and firm stance. Otherwise, China and its people will bully you by bluffing and throwing empty threats at you – many who have dealt with businessmen in China will probably understand better than others.

China’s negotiation tactics have always been the same: demanding that the other party drop all preconditions and engage in a negotiation in which China will be certain to get everything it wants and the other party will perhaps gain a couple of biscuits. Agreeing to engage in a negotiation with China whilst giving up all preconditions means China has already won the negotiation. The negotiation is merely a formality and a show to legitimise China getting what it wants, whilst gaining acceptance by both parties: Signing an agreement with China simply means China wins all (gets all it wants) and one loses absolutely everything one believes in – and hoped to gain from the negotiation. If the agreement is no longer in China’s favour, China will behave as if the agreement has never been signed or move the goalposts to justify its behaviour.

Calling for – and securing – independence is the only way out. The Hong Kong people need to have the guts to prepare for a true battle. Protesting year after year under China’s rule only means that Hong Kong will eventually be turned into a city of China – no freedom, no individuality, no critical thinking, no human rights, and no future. China will remove any dissenters or discontented individuals by putting them in prison (or murdering them) or forcing them to flee. Removing all objection and opposition ensures perfect harmony (one of China’s most-oft-repeated – and in this case chilling – aims: a harmonious society): Hong Kong’s brand name will remain true on the surface, but the under the table deals are going on to replace honest business deals that live up to the spirit of contracts.

This will be the only fight. Blood may be shed and the future is uncertain (democracy is not perfect), but one must not surrender before trying. Democracy is something people need to stand and fight (and be ready to die) for. Not something people will be given by kneeling and begging.

Hong Kong’s Democratic Movement – A Unique Protest Culture that Guarantees Success Never

Hong Kong’s Democratic Movement – A Unique Protest Culture that Guarantees Success Never

Source: Guardian

When one thinks of protest, one can picture that the people are unsatisfied by the government and have decided to take action over certain matters, to show the government (whether or not elected democratically by the people) that what it is doing is against the will of the people. Ultimately, the function of a protest is to make the government listen to the people, with the implicit threat that otherwise the people will make sure their demands are met – even if that means overthrowing the government.

We have seen thousands and thousands of protests in the world, and many end in bloodshed. It is no doubt sad but one has to pay a price for what one wants, and on the road to democracy and to freedom, prices often are high. Yes, blood will be shed, and yes those in power, democratically elected or not, will most certainly use propaganda to label the protests as “violent” or “irrational”. However, when a government goes against the peoples will’, or worse, betrays its people, the rational response is to behave “irrationally” – it is only human nature. After all, not all violence is visible and will directly cause death: bloodless violence does not mean that no harm is done. This type of violence carried out by a regime, or by people in power, will almost certainly trigger violence led by angry people – the people who no longer trust the government and doubt the credibility of those in power.

People protest with the aim of changing what is wrong in society. People want to make sure the changes happen. For better or worse, changes will bring new ideas to the regime, or even a new government that will listen to the people and respect their will. Demonstrations reinforce to those in power the fact that it is the people who give the government the privilege to serve, reminding the world of the foundations of democracy: A government is accountable to its people.

We have seen how Ukrainians rejected their government earlier this year. Of course we have all seen the videos of musicians playing music in front of fully-armed police troopers. Of course we have all watched the videos of Ukrainians explaining to the world what they are trying to achieve. All of these seemed peaceful and rational. However, when their voices were not heard, they marched on. They threw rocks at the police, who are supposed to be the servants of the people and protect the people, but instead were obeying a regime that ordered them to kill civilians. The police used their truncheons on the people, and snipers shot to kill.

The word “riot” is always used by governments seeking to bolster their own legitimacy in the face of a people who have decided that they will no longer accept their lies and betrayals! Words are amazing things: they control how the public see a certain issue, they plant ideas in our minds without us knowing, they are the best invention for those in power to continue brutality, and they are the killing machines which those who are high up deploy to manipulate the world’s point of view in the international arena.

In Hong Kong, the situation is completely different. Not that Hongkongers do not wish to have democracy, not that the government is less tyrannical than others, not that there are not protests. The key difference is the existence of “professional protesters”. These are those who take pains to appear to be helping Hongkongers on different issues: may it be broad topics like referendum and democracy, or local-scale issues like the construction of incinerators or the expansion of land-fills in certain areas. However, their goal is to take control (or hijack) the issue by representing the people. These people are high profile and are shape themselves as the frontline fighters in Hong Kong.

They violate the natural rules of protest. They promote peaceful, rational, non-(physically) violent and non-verbally-violent protests, but all these strictures apply only to protesters: That is to say that when the police use violence against protesters, they would tell protesters to remain non-violent and accept their fate – to be brutalised.

How do they do that? Let’s sum it up in a ten step routine they apply to EVERY PROTEST:

1. An issue is brought up, and a small concern group is formed by the individuals being affected directly by the issue (e.g. Northeast New Territories Development Plan which will affect some villagers more directly than others, but it is important to acknowledge that the Plan will dissolve Hong Kong’s border which will lead to a catastrophic butterfly effect – so the issue is broader than it is being portrayed to the public)
2. “Professional protesters” get involved and present themselves to be the approachable “protest experts” to the concern group
3. When the “protest” comes around, the “professional protesters” will allow the concern group/the subject of the matter to speak on stage to attract more people and media, generating public support. These “protesters” will wait for the perfect moment, very patiently, sometimes days for days (e.g. the anti brainwashing-national-education-curriculum protest)
4. When the moment comes, the “professional protesters” will take to the stage and hijack the protest
5. The “professional protesters” will make a moving statement praising the concern group/affected individuals for their courage and determination to take the matter on, making everyone’s blood boil and bringing the atmosphere to a climax
6. The “professional protesters” will then call for a photo opportunity for the media to take pictures to commemorate the event – a trophy for them, as their image as frontline fighters is reinforced once again
7. They then will give the stage back to the concern group, and begin negotiating with them what the next step should be, behind the scenes. The group and the supporters will be left there to carry on chanting, shouting slogans, or worse, singing songs. They will talk the concern group down and the typical reasons they give to call it a day are, “we have achieved a great deal” (the ultimate goal is far from being achieved!), “you guys are really tired”, “the government and the public have heard our voice”, “let’s be strategic and focus our energy on our next move”, “the public is clearly on our side, look at the turnout!”
8. The tired concern groups are talked down and their passion is weakened. Because of the “credibility” these “professional protesters” enjoy, the concern group believes in the key advice given by these “protest experts” – it is a long term game
9. When they persuade the concern group successfully, the “professional protesters” retake the stage and announce on behalf of the concern group that, “we have made our voice heard today/tonight! We could not have done all this without you and the support of the people of Hong Kong, right? (every one shouts YEAH!)” and then, “let’s give ourselves a round of applause!”
10. The “professional protesters” will then talk their way out and conclude the protest. The protest ends peacefully without challenging the regime, the government, the people in power – in fact the protest is concluded without achieving any of the goals originally set, let alone any demands being fulfilled.

Protests in Hong Kong end peacefully, every time, but no one ever asks why even though 99% of these protests preserve the status quo. No one follows up, and the “professional protesters” carry on looking for other topics and issues to dominate in order to build their reputations as the “face of democracy, and the power of the people” despite the fact that they have done, almost always, more harm than good.

Truth be told, people’s movements require no leader. Unfortunately, Hongkongers do not seem to be able to function without a leader in any circumstances – that is exactly why many Hongkongers began to use the term “Kong-sheep” to describe ourselves: desperate to follow.

In some recent occasions, anonymous protesters have volunteered to participate in protests even though the subject matter does not directly affect them. These protesters do not buy into the routine “professional protesters” practice throughout all these years, but believe that when the government is dysfunctional and can no longer be trusted, the people should overthrow it.

Source: Daily Telegraph

To Hong Kong’s eternal grief, these volunteers are always abandoned on-site without fail. The “professional protesters” will always stop them by taking the moral high grond: “this is not what the concern group wants! They want a peaceful and rational protest!” “Violence is bad in any circumstances (no matter what the government has done and what bloodless violence the regime has engaged in)!” All these may sound perfect at the point when a true peoples’ movement begins, but to a dictatorship or a government that is not accountable to its people, it is more than music to their ears!

Without disrupting the system by disobeying those in power, the people have zero chance to achieve what they demand – something these volunteering protesters understand. They are bold, but at the same time, they understand how corrupt the authorities and uniformed forces are. That is why they want to protect themselves with masks or cover – what we see as “black bloc” in many protests. However, the “professional protesters” will jump out to condemn these individuals as spies planted by the authorities and convince the “subjects of the protest (concern group)” to believe their story.

The individuals volunteering as protesters risk their personal safety for what they believe in, and for the concern group’s interests. However, they are being dismissed and often betrayed by the “professional protesters”.

Often times, lawmakers, who come across as being pro-democracy (a stand which once taken seems to lend a teflon quality to all adopters), are the first to condemn these “irrational acts” and even side with the authority to “prevent” any “violence” from happening again by endorsing the reinforcement of security around these events. Some even criticise protesters for wearing masks (surgical or otherwise Guy Fawkes masks) and demand that them surrender themselves to the police. If you read the news, you will find out who these people are.

Source: The Telegraph

Traitors of the people often come in disguise. Only when we realise who those traitors are can we break free from the burdens that have been laid on us all over the past decades, and really take control of the society that we want to make better.

If we continue to believe that the representatives in the legislative council will be able to resolve our problems, and lower our guard, we will be sold out. Because many of them, politicians or “experts”, are no different from the corrupt. Perhaps with the exception of the care with which they have painted their masks to gain the seats that you and I pay for.

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.

Smugglers Openly Use Public House Address to Smuggle Milk Powder

Smugglers Openly Use Public House Address to Smuggle Milk Powder.

Tourists? Really?!?!

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!

Primary School Exercise – Can You Answer Them?

Alpais Lam Wai-sze, a primary school teacher, who has been under the spotlight for months because she defended the rights for peaceful demonstration by Fa Lung Gong people, has become the subject of primary school exercise materials.

This is what the above exercise says:

A female teacher, Ms Alpais Lam Wai-sze used foul language at police and caused a series of storms.

Questions:

1. Do you think as a human being, is it correct to swear? Why?
2. Do you think Ms Alpais Lam Wai-sze insulted the police with foul language was appropriate? Why?
3. Do you think Ms Alpais Lam Wai-sze should be penalised by the school she teaches at? Why?
4. Do you think Ms Alpais Lam Wai-sze should resign from her teaching position? Why?
5. Ms Alpais Lam Wai-sze has already apologised, but the storm continues. What do you think can end this incident?
6. What have you learnt from this incident?

This is an exercise produced by Alliance Primary School, Tai Hang Tung for its primary four students.

I honestly don’t think a 9 or 10 years old kid would have sufficient knowledge to answer these questions… But this is not the point! These questions all seem to have some sort of “agenda”! Why would this school what students to focus and dwell on this incident? Also, all these questions are based on one fact and disregard EVERYTHING ELSE. These questions should be a less biased and lay out facts rather than offering one tiny little bit of the matter and start escalating it to a “swear words” is something that human beings should not say!

Parents in Hong Kong have no guts to challenge the school for this kind of exercise, as they worry that the teachers will “black list” their children, affecting their children’s grades.

COME ON! Power of the people! If all the parents stand firm and tell the school that this is unacceptable, I bet the school would back down. But NO! This is the fundamental problem of Hong Kongers. Seriously, GROW A PAIR! You can’t rely on others to stick it up for you forever!!

I’m so disappointed in the people of Hong Kong! Speak up and try to defend yourselves and your children, for goodness’ sake! We should not be timid by the so called power or authorities.

Over and Out!