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.

SupportNationalEducationAbove 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.

Yang Kuang’s “Disapperance” HK Journalists Being Attacked in China

Mr. Yang Kuang (Why Yang), a Hong Kong activist, disappeared for 41 hours in China when he tried to visit his friend Liu Xia, wife of Liu Xiao Bo (Nobel Peace Prize winner).

He was then “sent home” by PRC China on 10th March 2013. No assistance was given to Mr. Yang during his “disappearance” and Mr. CY Leung, the Chief Executive, responded to the press’ enquiry that the government has not received any request for assistance.

Hong Kong journalists who went follow the story were beaten up by 4-5 men outside the residential area, which is public space, of Mrs. Liu’s flat.

A video filmed by Now TV (a local paid TV channel) shows part of the incident – the journalists being attacked are from Now TV, RTHK, TVB, Commercial Radio,

A TVB reporter talked about the incident here. According to the reporter, these 4-5 men rushed over to the journalists and started to beat them up right away. The police arrived after the journalists called for help, but they did not arrest any of the attackers and told the journalists that they should not ask any questions about the attackers. The TVB reporter also said that her reporter identity card was taken away.

Mr. Ma Fung-Kwok, HK Deputy to the National People’s Congress, commented on the incident that “When in Rome do as the Romans do” and said that the key is whether the Hong Kong journalists were covering the story legally.

Mr. CY Leung, the Chief Executive, said reporters should be protected and respected as they cover stories legally.

Public outcry in Hong Kong for thorough investigation, and condemn PRC/China for their barbarian actions. The HK Journalists Association also expressed their fury against the attack.

These “ordinary men” are suspected to be plainclothes police – one of them was recognised by the media as a PRC policeman.

Queen’s Road East – 90’s Canto-Pop

Queen’s Road East is a Canto-pop written in 1991, when Hong Kong’s future was determined by the British government and PRC government where Hong Kong people had absolutely no say. This song reflects the confusion of Hong Kongers and our fear for the Communist and PRC. If you watch the MTV carefully, you’d notice there are scenes of people and cars moving backward, a metaphor to symbolism that Hong Kong will go backward after the handover of sovereignty.

The lyrics is full of metaphor. Strongly illustrating Hong Kongers desperation and helplessness about our future.

Hope you’d enjoy the MTV and the lyrics translated below:

Queen’s Road West and Queen’s Road East
Queen’s Road East turns into Queen’s Road Central
Queen’s Road Central is crowded with people

Our royal friend is on the back of coins
Forever young and named the Queen
Follows me everywhere to do all sorts of trade
With an expressionless face that represents success

A dear friend leaves this big city and says goodbye
Have to rely on the comrades to create new ideas
Where properties are available everywhere, people carry on buying and selling
But Mong Kok* may have to change its name

This rightful friend is familiar and friendly
Hence, allowing horses to race only twice a week
People, therefore, naturally compete to cross the finishing line
If you wish to be a citizens of the great nation, all it requires is money

Our dear friend leaves this big city and says goodbye
Have to rely on the comrades to create new ideas
The hot and cold weather still affects this city
But we may have to seek help from people with supernatural power for a change of weather

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness**
Emptiness is form, form is emptiness…

This beautiful friend says goodbye in class
The same picture shown on TV every night
When the day of celebration comes, everyone has to applause
The respectable face on the back of coins turns into statues of martyrs

Our dear friend leaves this big city and says goodbye
Have to rely on the comrades to create new ideas
The railways, buses and taxis will run all the same
But one may not know the routes anymore

* Mong Kok is a famous district with lots of hawker stalls, but have changed massively because of the influx of PRC Chinese tourists

** A famous Buddhist quote

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.

Chinese Call for Referendum

This is a recent post by Mainland Chinese in response to the new measures imposed by Hong Kong SAR government to tackle the formula powder shortage.

HK Government QNMLGB (please see note 1)!

Starting today, Mainlanders call for a referendum:

  1. China to limit electricity supply to Kong Kong – each Hong Konger will be allocated 2 units per day
  2. China to limit fresh water supply to Hong Kong – each Hong Konger will be allocated 2 liters per day

If any one to be found out using more than the above quota will be sentence for life and subject to lifetime deprivation of political rights (please see note 2).

Hong Kong Government: QNMLGB!!!

 

Reply to this post by another Chinese:

Have you no idea about how much of your (Hong Kong’s) resources is from China? Garbage running dogs dare to bite their owners (i.e. China)?

Image

Note 1: Chinese (mainland Chinese) very often use English letters to represent and abbreviate swear words as they’re think using them on blog and websites could make them look less civilised. QNMLGB is a “coded swear word”, which means “f**k your mothers smelly c**t”

Note 2: deprivation of political rights is a typical “punishment” in China, very often activities of human rights campaigns that are found guilty will be given this “punishment”

Do You Think Hong Kongers are Qualified to “Tolerate and Forgive”?

In 2012, Hong Kong recorded the total of 50,000,000 tourists, and the majority of them are mainland Chinese. Let’s put this number into context. 50,000,000 visitors is seven times of Hong Kong’s population. Can you imagine a place received tourists amounted to seven times of its population? In addition, these tourists are mainly from the same country. The number of floating population of a tiny area amounts to seven times of the area’s population, putting tremendous pressure of this place, challenging this place’s maximum capacity,  namely: geographical, physical and psychological capacities. At the same time, the influx of visitors is changing the value, lifestyle and direction of development of this place, and more importantly, affecting this place’s structure and future.

The irony is, fake-left-wings politicians and middle class still believe that they are the host of this place. They, with an attitude of being superior and pretend to be humanitarians, ask Hong Kongers to tolerate. how could 7 million people tolerate and forgive 50 million people? How could you ask the disadvantaged to tolerate and forgive the invasion of a much stronger nation which armies can be easily mobilised? The cinemas, local eateries and co-op stores that once belonged to the 7 million people, are turned into pharmacies, jewellery shops and handbag stores that belong to 50 million people. The houses, school spaces, formula powder of these 7 million people were taken away by the 50 million people, and the 7 million people have to tolerate and forgive. The free market of 7 million people is being severely disrupted by a non-free market owned by 1.3 billion people, and the 7 million people have to tolerate and forgive… It is always the privilege of the stronger side to tolerate and forgive the weak and disadvantaged. Asking those who are being bullied and pushed around to tolerate and forgive is a self-deception concept.

An article by Chan King-Fai (a Hong Kong commentator) called “The Limit of a Tourist Destination Unvealed by Formula Powder Shortage” said that to any place in the world, a  massive amount of tourists entering it uncontrolled can affect it substantially, not only on its economy. Focusing purely on free flow of tourists, allowing a place to be penetrated by an outside power, the consequence could be just like Zygmunt Bauman said “helplessly shackled to localities that are slipping away from their grasp“.

Image

Communist Chinese Rule Hong Kong

1st March 2013, Friday

Communist Youth League of China’s Plan to Rule HK – Ethnic Cleansing

We often hear that the ultimate targets for Mainland Chinese students are the US and the UK and Hong Kong is only a stepping stone. This is correct, but is only the partial fact.

The top trench of Chinese students, of course, leaves China. Those who have strong family background (i.e. parents being senior government officials) will return to China so to become the new officials. The truth is, 80 million of China’s 1.3 billion populations are Communist Party members, and the second generation of the low to middle ranking government officials wants to get “benefits” too.

It is not very difficult for Chinese to study abroad, and it is not especially hard for them to find a job in the West either. However, the high tax rate and mediocre salary in the West, plus their level of English isn’t universally high and the most difficult part of all is to integrate into the western society. This conclusion is based on the observation that Chinese students in Hong Kong failed to integrate into Hong Kong, and those in the rest of the world tend to gather in their local China Towns. It shows that the number of Chinese students who can integrate into the western world is limited. Given the number of Chinese students in other countries, the number of those who make it is still substantial.

Where in the world is easy to immigrate, with low income tax rate and a government that favours Chinese? The answer is Hong Kong! Chinese who study in the UK cannot apply for neutralisation unless they have been living in the UK for ten years. But in Hong Kong, all it takes is to study a MA, a one year programme, and apply for work visa and they can immediately become Hong Kong residents. This is the same as hospital selling labour ward space to Chinese and give a Hong Kong ID card to the new born for free: universities sell their degrees and attach a “free” Hong Kong ID card. As the number of highly-educated people that work in hospitals is very limited compare to those who teach at universities, every time when people raise questions about the university selling degree to Chinese, people jump out to defend this system and glorify it as a measure to “resolve the aging population in Hong Kong” and to “introduce top quality professionals to Hong Kong”.

China’s ethnic cleansing plan on Hong Kong started way back. In recent years, you can see a lot of young men and women, the children of senior, middle and low ranking government officials in China, in Hong Kong. These people came to Hong Kong to study, and obtain their Hong Kong ID and take the Hong Kong government funded scholarships to study their Masters in Ivy League, Cambridge and Oxford. They then returned to Hong Kong as professionals, for example, barristers, solicitors and iBankers, and live in luxurious places. Those who are not professionals, take a linguistic degree, study in translation, work in the cultural and arts space, or even become columnists. Why would they take up any opportunities in Hong Kong? The answer is simple: Hong Kong is way better than the hell China. A Hong Kong ID card is almost like insurance to them – for example, Lai ChangXing and Gu KaiLai both hold Hong Kong ID cards.

The HKSAR Government Scholarship Fund is a reward for the Communist Youth League of China. You don’t believe it? Let me explain to you. A few years ago, CEPA secretly introduced a scheme that is tailored for Mainland Chinese, allowing them to convert their licences to Hong Kong driving licenses for free. In less than six years, a total over 85,000 Hong Kong driving licenses were issued to Mainland Chinese (there are only 400,000 private cars in Hong Kong, there is no need to issue so many driving licenses) [my note: HK’s road system and traffic regulations are very different from those in China]. According to BBC’s report in February 2012, a record of over 13,000 Hong Kong driving license holders attempted to convert into the UK driving license in two years. A tiny Hong Kong bet the rest of the world in this incident. Years ago, we have predicted that this new measure is for Mainland Chinese to con the world. People didn’t believe in us, and eventually the UK government amended its law this January to close the loophole which seems to be targeting Hong Kong: “to convert to UK driving license applicants must passed the driving test at the issued destination” – which means Hong Kong license issued to individuals who took the driving test in Hong Kong, but not Hong Kong license converted from a China license, can be converted into UK license – A tailor made measure targeting Mainland Chinese students.

In time, the Communist Youth League of China and offspring of low to middle ranking China government officials will come to Hong Kong to study (for example, international school), then endorsed by the HKSAR government to study abroad, and return to Hong Kong as Hong Kong permanent residence to teach National and Moral Education for a couple years. They will also at the same time, participate in arts competitions, join advisory organization, HKSAR’s Central Policy Unit, and all of a sudden become part of the HKSAR government, and in a few years the leaders of Hong Kong to rule Hong Kong.

These have been happening for at least eight to ten years. Many genuine Hong Kongers still dream about “establishing a free China”, and fail to realize that China has already successfully planted the seeds of and executing “the great plan of Communists ruling Hong Kong”!

Kay Lam, a local Hong Kong columnist

Follow up on Beijing Woman Slams Hong Kong Movie “Vulgaria”

Please refer to my last post Beijing Woman Slams Hong Kong Movie “Vulgaria” to get an understanding of this news.

After investigations, the netizens and media found out a bit more about this prize winner. Jia XuanNing wrote another “critic piece” on a China produced movie “Lost in Thailand (泰囧)” which was openly accused by the Thailand government for insulting Thai people. Ms. Jia praised this movie in her critic and said that “(the movie) brings popular fun to the pre-Lunar New Year dullness in China”. The movie itself, according to sources and Thai people, blatantly smears the Thai. Ms. Jia’s critic piece is available in Simplified Chinese here.

Columnists today, in response to this new “discovery”, wrote a fair few pieces (example 1 and 2). In short, they think that Ms. Jia is “double standard” and “is a typical China Communist party member – who defends China and Chinese blindly even though they are in the wrong”.

According to netizens, in a nut shell, the mentality of China Communists is: people outside of China (that is the rest of the world including Hong Kong) who portrait the negatives of Chinese and China are discriminating Chinese because they envy China’s wealth, but Chinese can do whatever they like (mocking other races, calling Caucasians names despite faking a smile in front of them, etc) and Chinese people would glorify their acts and use propaganda to influence (some call it “brainwash”) other Chinese people; and the outsiders (including Hong Kongers) is wrong about doing a certain thing, but it’s perfectly ok for Chinese to do the same thing.

In Ms. Jia’s critic piece on “Lost in Thailand” she said the complete opposite of what she wrote in the critic about the HK movie Vulgaria:

China produced comedy may create a new style of “Lunar New Year movie”, to demonstrate a stronger local character (of China) to the world.

In her critic on Vulgaria (the HK produced movie that targets HK locals), Ms. Jia said that the sarcasm of Chinese in Vulgaria is discriminating Chinese (Ms. Jia is accused to have selectively ignored the fact that the movie makes fun of local Hong Kongers most of the time).

A few columnists said that Ms. Jia is only a higher paid “50 cents” (she won HK$50,000 for what she wrote about Vulgaria). Newspapers also reported today that Ms. Jia is closely related to the judge panel of this prize, which is supported by the HKSAR government (that is tax payers are funding it). Some said that this is only a little step of China’s influence and propaganda to brainwash and “correct” Hong Kongers’ feelings against Chinese.

 

Beijing Woman Slams Hong Kong Movie “Vulgaria”

Vulgaria, a locally produced comedy filled with hilarious satire. The focus of this movie is about “how hard it is to be in the movie industry” – behind the glorious surface of the entertainment industry, it is actually very tough.

For some reason and not sure when, swearing is no longer accepted in Hong Kong movies. Since when thugs speak without swearing is beyond me, but this is how ridiculous the censorship in Hong Kong has become – one step closer to China, perhaps.

This movie won a lot of support from the Hong Kongers because characters in this movie seem much more alive and real than many Hong Kong-China joint productions. Hong Kongers can relate themselves and believe that those characters actually exist! It may not be an Oscars grade, according to netizens and commentators, but very real Hong Kong story, a hysterical mocking/reflection of the movie industry and, most importantly, funny.

Image

Hong Kongers think that nothing is wrong for locally produced movies targeting the locals. Many also agree that swearing exists in every corner in the world, and shouldn’t be made a huge fuzz about such – swearing is quite common in movies made by the West. Many audiences said they enjoyed the laughs and find it a unique movie in the current market, which is dominated by well funded movies targeting the China market, meaning censorship (nothing bad about China and there are cases whereby movies have to “change” history to praise China) and not “real” enough.

A Peking (Beijing) young woman wrote a critic piece about this movie, slamming how “vulgar” this movie is (the movie is called “Vularia”). Hong Kongers think that she’s using a very political view on her critic piece instead of approaching it from an art appreciation/critic point of view. Her piece won her the Gold ADC Critic’s Prize (cash award of HK$50,000) – the judge panel was found to be closely connected to the China government and the writer. Bottom of this blog post is an English report for your reference.

Her prize caused massive public discontent in Hong Kong, mainly against her not-art-critic view point on the movie, and fuels Hong Kongers’ worry about China’s propaganda and plan to colonise Hong Kong by penetrating into Hong Kong – legal system (recent prosecution of protesters who joint a rally approved by the government), education (national and moral education), clean government (Chief Executives and many other influential figures in Hong Kong are alleged to be underground Community Party members), the influx of China immigrants, the increasing use of simplified Chinese characters in the public, the use of Putonghua (Mandarin) in school instead of Cantonese (the native language of Hong Kong – for the record, Cantonese is recognised by the UN as a language and over 100 million people in the world are using it) etc. This time, is the arts space and movie industry.

According to some, this kind of penetration programme is a technique the China government has been using in the past 60-plus years since it was established.

The freedoms in Hong Kong, a land with a history of over 170 years, is being eroded ever since the handover of sovereignty back in 1997.

Critique of Critic’s Prize Award

Written by Alice Poon (潘慧嫻)

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

The Hong Kong Arts Development Council’s award of a Gold ADC Critic’s Prize (the first of its kind) to a local journalist Jia Xuanning for her critical essay on the film “Vulgar Comedy” (“低俗喜劇”) has stirred up much controversy. The essay itself is under caustic attack from liberal-minded Hong Kongers.

Here are translated excerpts from another retort article by an InmediaHK writer:-

“I have commented from a cultural viewpoint. Now let me give a critique on the latter half of the essay from a social viewpoint.  The essay points out [the Mainland may well act as Hong Kong’s benevolent master, but it has not won Hong Kongers’ heart. On the one hand Hong Kongers bow to the Mainland’s economic prowess, while on the other refuse to let go of their residual sense of superiority on the mental level. This paradoxical mentality is like the psychological struggle of the film’s character played by Du: he shows an obsequious smiling face, while at heart he feels he’s being raped; they feel alienated from the mainlanders’s ‘inferiority’, yet they are being naturalized and glossed over. In the face of the Mainland, Hong Kong senses a loss of self-esteem and a collapse of the last line of defense with no power to retaliate, and in the end the already sickly relationship between the two places will only exacerbate.] (I’ve quoted this from the original essay, to avoid being accused of taking remarks out of context.) Jia’s essay smacks of imperialist mentality, full of condescension, insinuating that Hong Kongers are subservient to money, that being rich is almighty (as implied by ‘benevolent master’). Yet, Jia does not have a clear perception of reality. To say that Hong Kongers are jealous of mainlanders’ wealth is pure conjecture. According to IMF data, Hong Kong has a GDP per capita of close to US$36,000, while the Mainland’s figure is around US$6,000. Hong Kong is the Mainland third largest export partner (the first two being the European Union and the United States). The PRC’s Commerce Department data shows that Hong Kong’s investment in Mainland China amounts to US$600 billion, i.e. 46 percent of all of its foreign investment. As is apparent from data of different sources, the Mainland has to rely on Hong Kong.”

筆者已經批評《從》的文化觀點,今批評文中後部的社會觀點。文中指「大陸可以做香港的恩主,卻無法收服港人的心,港人臣服於大陸在經濟層面的強盛,卻又決計不肯放棄精神層面殘存的優越感,這種一邊依賴、一邊排斥的矛盾關係,令港人對大陸的心態正像片中杜汶澤那樣掙扎:表面曲意賣笑,內心卻感到在「被強姦」;既不能認同大陸人的「低質素」,又在被不斷同化與浸淫。當香港在大陸這個「他者」面前,感到尊嚴流失、底線崩塌又偏偏無力還擊時,病態的中港關係便愈演愈烈。」(此處為原文,免得指筆者斷章取義)。賈氏的文章充斥帝國主義者的心態,如君臨天下的駕馭港人,以為有錢大晒,暗指港人為奴才(恩主的暗示)。然而,賈氏沒有看清現實。若果論香港人妒忌大陸人有錢,卻是無中生有。根據國際貨幣基金組織的數據,香港人均本地生產總值為近三萬六千多美元,而中國大陸為六千多美元,香港的人均本地生產總值足足多大陸六倍。香港為中國第三的出口顆伴(依次為歐盟,美國),達近百分之十四。根據中華人民共和國商務部外國投資管理司的數據,香港對大陸的投達近六千億美元,佔中國境外投資的百分之四十六,為各國最高。從各方面的數據,大陸都必須依靠香港。當年戈爾巴喬夫說俄羅斯的經濟改革比大陸更困難,因為沒有香港。

“Even without mentioning the mutually beneficial economic co-operation, the Mainland is still indebted to Hong Kong from the historical standpoint. During the Great Leap Forward when 30 million Chinese were starving to death (I do not know whether Jia has read about this part of Chinese history?), Hong Kongers selflessly extended help to the Mainland. More recently, whenever there were natural disasters like floods and earthquakes, Hong Kongers, apart from donating money generously, were involved in a series of rehabilitation hope -projects. On the other hand, the so-called tourism benefits brought about by the individual travel scheme are only concentrated in sales of luxury goods and local properties, to the detriment of local small and medium businesses. The real effect of that scheme is to enrich the few conglomerates; it does not benefit the average citizen at all. Indeed, citizens have had to bear the negatives, like street congestion, bad behaviors of travelers, parallel trades and a whole lot of resource distribution problems. I would urge Jia to take a fuller view of facts before writing, and would beseech the award panelists to use their common sense in making judgment.”

先不論互惠互利的經濟合作,從歷史看,大陸仍是虧欠香港。當年大躍進餓死三千萬人(不知賈氏讀中國歷史時有沒有這段歷史?),香港人無條件接濟大陸。改革開放後,中國發生的天災人禍,例如華東水災,四川大地震等,香港人捐了無數的資金,還有一系列的希望工程。大陸有錢人不做的,香港人全都包了上身。然而,自由行帶來的所謂消費,高度集中在奢侈品和樓,排斥了本地的中小企業。而掌控奢侈品的,卻是本土大財閥,自由行的結果就是助長財團,一般市民根本不能得益。另一方面,一般市民卻要承受負面的外部成本,例如阻街,自由行影響市容的行為,水貸問題和一系列資源分配問題等等。請賈氏寫文章前,好好看清現實,並請評審員判斷時,運用你們的常識。

“On another issue, the essay mentions that the film ‘Vulgar Comedy’ discriminates against mainlanders because one of the characters in the film played by Cheng mocks at mainlanders, which reflects a fear that Hong Kongers harbor. First of all, the film is not discriminatory towards mainlanders, as that character is a nouveau-riche plebeian and is not representative of all mainlanders. What the film tries to mock are the philistine habits of some nouveau-riche commoners – it does not amount to discrimination. However, what Jia says about Hong Kongers’ fear is correct, but for the wrong reason. Starting from the day of the handover, the Central Government has constantly been chipping away Hong Kongers’ freedom, trying arrogantly to domesticate Hong Kong with the Mainland’s officialdom way of handling things. It even mentions co-operation of the three powers. Now Hong Kong enjoys less and less freedom. Dissidents are suppressed. A society attuned to lies is in the making, thanks to the Central and Hong Kong SAR governments. The freedoms that we enjoy are a natural endowment – they are not granted by the Basic Law. We are being robbed of those freedoms. Certainly we have good reason to fear.”

此外,文中提及《低》歧視大陸人,因為鄭中基所演的角色是嘲弄大陸人,反映出香港人對大陸的恐懼。她的說法部分正確。第一,《低》並沒有種族歧視,因為鄭中基所演的角色是大陸的暴發戶,而非指所有大陸人。《低》所嘲笑的,是大陸暴發戶的惡俗,並不構成種族歧視,而且,若果將暴發戶英雄化,恐怕賈小姐亦不能接受。賈氏所說香港人對大陸的恐懼是正確的,不過卻是錯的理由。自主權移交後,中共不斷壓制香港人的自由,妄圖以大陸官場的方式同化香港,更提出所謂三權合作。現今香港的自由越來越少了,反抗者被打壓,變成謊言社會,全都是中共和港共政府所造成。我們所享的自由,理應是天賦,不是《基本法》賦予的,中共像強盜般奪去,港人當然恐懼。

“What should have been an arts critique essay turns out to read more like a social commentary, full of political motives. I cannot but be baffled as to why such an essay could be selected for an award. Is it proper for the Arts Development Council to be thus politically charged? Why has this Council in Hong Kong become so like the Propaganda Department in directing ideology? If such an essay is worthy of an award, then participants in the next competition will probably slant their essays towards ideology. I would rather watch vulgar films than read a work of venomous lies.”

一篇藝術評論文章,竟然寫了社會評論那樣,而且充滿政治動機,令筆者不得不擔心為何《從《低俗喜劇》透視港片焦慮》一文可以得獎。藝發局是否有政治的含義?為何一個香港人的局變成中宣部那麼,指示意識形態?若果這文章可以得獎,那麼下一屆的藝術評論參賽者則可能朝此意識形態寫文章,只怕不久香港爆發一場文化大革命,藝術品服膺於政治命令。我寧可睇低俗的作品,也不想看惡毒的謊言。

Chinese Being Discrimated by Hong Kongese – Wee in Public is Not Allowed!

A Chinese (a.k.a. Mainland Chinese) blogger complained about being discriminated by Hong Kongers! Summarising the story below:

Image

In his/her recent trip to Hong Kong, something very upsetting happened to him/her…
The blogger and his family (including his/her just over 2-year-old son) went to the Tsui Wah Restaurant (a famour local restaurant chain) on Carnarvon Road around 8-9pm on 9/Feb. They have a habit of carrying a plastic bottle for the child to wee in case they can’t find bathrooms in the public.
 
The child wanted to have a pee, and the blogger took him to a corner inside Tsui Wah and get ready for his release. The staff in Tsui Wah almost screamed at us “there’s a toilet on the 2nd floor!” Everyone in the restaurant looked at the blogger and the child. The blogger said to the waitress “my child is very young, he might not be able to hold and wet his pants. It’s cold and he may catch a cold!”
Before the waitress could response, another male staff tried to stop the blogger, who wrote “he said that peeing inside the restaurant is not allowed, and it affects other customers or whatever”.
The blogger said: I understand that it (kid peeing in public) is not pleasant, but if the staff really concern about other customers, they should have come over and tell us quietly instead of screaming at us. The truth is, the Hong Kongers are just against Mainland Chinese! We were very upset because of that. Our Lunar New Year’s eve was ruined because of these Hong Kongers who discriminate Mainlanders.