Democracy in Hong Kong? Leungs Pratically Says “NEVER!”

People want democracy in Hong Kong? Simple answer is: as long as China continues to have sovereignty over Hong Kong, that’s impossible.

During an interview with Bloomberg, CY Leung basically admitted that China controls the way what “democratic election” is about:

Increased democracy in Hong Kong may lead to China’s refusal to appoint a leader elected by the city’s people

One Country Two System? A complete utter LIE from day one!

Put it quite simply: how could a communist dictatorship govern a city-state that’s semi-democratic (part of the legislature is elected by the people) and practices capitalism? Hong Kong courts practice Common Law, and all are innocent until proven guilty, and China is completely the opposite (guilty until proven innocent); education system: completely different; lifestyle: completely different; culture: share some similarities but not quite; etc.

Why did the Brits agreed to hand Hong Kong over to China is still a mystery. China never owned Hong Kong to start with! It was the Qing (translation from Chinese: Great Qing Country) who owned Hong Kong (HK Island and Kowloon Peninsular), which was ceded to England perceptually. The New Territories were leased to the Brits for 99 years (I hate keep repeating myself, but once again 99 years in Chinese language is the equivalent of eternity). If the Brits wanted to “hand Hong Kong back” to a country, they really should have gone to Taiwan which holds the treaties about the above because Kuomintang was the one that overthrew Qing.

In any case, the Brits should have known better that Chinese cannot be trusted (Hong Kongers aren’t Chinese – Chinese is a concept/term that is so vague which covers a lot of things the Western world refer to, which is a massive topic). They must have seen the impossibility of this “One-Country-Two-System” crap. What were the Old China Hands thinking? Do you honestly think that by living in China for a few years you’re able to understand Chinese? Have you read the famous book The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese Culture by Bo Yang. It is such a shame that the book I Don’t Want to Be Chinese Again was not out earlier.

The UN allowed the Chinese to bully them over the issue of taking Hong Kong and Macau off the list of colonies in the 70s was beyond believe. All the nations in the UN are guilty for helping China to conolise Hong Kong. They should right their wrongs.

A friend forwarded this article to me which is very encouraging.

Margaret Thatcher’s Death

(source: TheJakartaGlobe.com & Reuters)

Margaret Thatcher, Former Prime Minister of the UK, died on 8th April. This news has been covered by every newspaper, forum, discussion board and Facebook page in Hong Kong. Although the world (and the majority of the people of Hong Kong) are evaluating what she’s done when she was in office, people in Hong Kong, especially the local, began to look at what has she done during the Sino-British negotiation back in the late 70s and 80s. Did the Iron Lady actually fight for Hong Kong? Or was she not really that tough a Prime Minister after all when she faced the Commies?

(source: Bloomberg)

Perhaps she did not fight, perhaps she did. Some said that the UK government never had the best interest of the people of Hong Kong in their heart. After all, not many people knew about Hong Kong then (in fact, many still don’t know Hong Kong was a British colony before it was handed to the Communists in 1997). People in the UK were extremely worried that 3 million** of Hong Kong people were going to flee to the UK and would collapse the country – the fact is, people of Hong Kong did not want to move to the UK, they only wanted some sort of security if the Communist ever crosses the line they have something to fall back to. People of Hong Kong are grateful for what the British government has done (e.g. nine years of free education for children, rule of law, clean government [at least cleaner than many other governments including China’s for years and for now], basic national health care provided by public hospital, public housing for the poor and the grass root, etc), yet disgusted by the fact that the British government essentially betrayed the people of Hong Kong as the British government kept their subjects in Hong Kong in the dark until it was the point of no return.

** The total population in Hong Kong was no more than 5 million, and no more than 3 million were British nations, i.e. either born in Hong Kong, a British colony, or have British citizenship via different means

I found a short post on the most popular discussion forum in Hong Kong, Golden Forum, and below is the translation (not word for word as I felt it is important to elaborate to give more details to the context):

一般香港人對英國的誤解
近日,有部份團體/個人提出一些意見,指”英國真的有那麼好嗎?”、”英國出賣香港,為何還要懷緬殖民地時代,何必呢?”云云。英國和中共相比, 大家都有眼睇;”英國出賣香港”實際上是某些人士借題發揮、大眾以訛傳訛的後果。筆者認為香港人有必要知道當年究竟發生甚麼事,而有之後的”香港成為英國 殖民地”、”香港忽然要被回歸”,因為香港赤化愈來愈嚴重,而且教科書亦非全面講解,只有短短數行字,電視亦為免”得罪大陸,打爛飯碗”,也不會道出全部 事實。

大家都知當年,滿清戰敗,先後割讓香港島、九龍半島,並讓英國租借新界。但為何要選擇香港這個地方呢?其實與清英戰爭有關。其實當年英軍久攻不破 林則除的防線,而艦上的淡水又接近用完,當時的澳門政府又拒絕為英軍補給,但為何最後又可以戰勝滿清?因為當時的香港人為英軍補給,致令英國戰勝滿清(有 部份歷史資料認為是基於反清心理,促使香港人協助英軍)。當時的英國主帥查理‧義律爵士雖然以英國利益為先,但亦深知滿清不會放過出於香港人,故冒上被撤 職的風險,都要出於道義和利益提出佔領香港、保護香港人,而非中史書所言的”不滿穿鼻草約利益過少而把義律撤職”。(詳情可以上網搜尋義律上書印度總督信 件,而信件內容已被香港浸會大學及樹仁大學引用為史實;亦可以翻閱” 改變香港歷史的60篇文獻”)

香港就此逐步成為英國的殖民地。

那麼,明明香港人生活安定,為何忽然要”被回歸”?很多人都以為是”租約到期”, 但明顯地是錯誤的,大家想一想割讓出去的香港島、九龍就會知道?

要理解這個問題,大家應先了解一些國際的決議。

聯合國1516號決議案訂明殖民地自決的權利,即是殖民地有權決定是否獨立、維持原狀等。

而在1946年12月14日,經聯合國大會決議,香港還在”尚未自治殖民地”名單內,要注意是整個香港(包括香港島、九龍、新界、離島及相關水域)。

聯合國憲章第73條b亦規定:尚未自治的殖民地,必須依照各地的情況,逐步協助使其自治。

看到這裡,大家都會有疑問:照常理,香港就算不獨立,也應該逐步取得全面自治,究竟”被回歸”原因何在?

原因就在於大陸的”奸招”(可能有人覺得冇問題,”奸”純粹是筆者對此事的觀感)。1972年,在聯合國準備通過2908號決議(內容是令使殖民 地都能儘快自決獨立)前,大陸以某種方式作要脅,提出將香港、澳門剔除出殖民地名單。當時,斐濟、瑞典、委內瑞拉等3國持不同意見,而英國亦依據香港主流民意(維持現況)致函聯合國秘書長,抗議聯合國大會把香港決議為中國領土,但大家都知大陸在聯合國內有幾多”朋友”。因此,英國唯有無奈接受,盡量為香港爭取”被回歸”後的利益。

香港就此被”老屈”收回,而近日不少示威中有人高呼”香港獨立”亦可算是合情、合理,而且並無違法。

The misunderstandings average Hong Kongers have against the UK:

Recently, some organisations and individuals have started to ask “was Britain that good?” “Britain betrayed Hong Kong, why would Hong Kongers still miss the colonial days?”.  I believe that Hong Kongers must learn about what actually happened back then before the phrases “Hong Kong became a British colony” and “Hong Kong was suddenly being returned”. Text books nor the media would not reveal all the facts as they need to make a living (note: given that they need to have the business from pro-China or China-backed organisations, individuals, etc)

As all should know (note: evidentially not known to many Brits), when Qin government lost in wars, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded to Britain perpetually, whilst the New Territories were leased to Britain (note: for 99 years, which in Chinese language it is equivalent to eternity). Why did Britain pick Hong Kong (a small fish village back then)? The British army had been fighting the Qin government’s troop (led by Lin Tse-Hsu) but could not defeat them, to make the situation more difficult, they were running out of fresh water, but the Macau government then refused provide supply to the British army. Fortunately, people in Hong Kong provided supply to the British troop which eventually helped them beat Qin. Although Admiral Sir Charles Elliot, who led the army, put England’s interest first, he understood that Qin government would not let the people of Hong Kong off. He risked his career and proposed to take over Hong Kong in order to protect the people of Hong Kong, purely because of his morality. This is completely different from the Chinese history books which say “the British government was not pleased about the benefits they could get from the Convention of Chuenpee” (this can be referenced to the letter Charles Elliot sent to the governor of India, which has been categorised as historical fact).

This is when Hong Kong began to turn into a British colony.

The people of Hong Kong had been doing just fine, why was there a sudden “being returned to China”? Many thought that it was because of the lease (note: New Territories) was up, but there is a fundamental fault in this theory.

To understand this, one must understand some international resolutions:

According to United Nations Security Council resolution 1516 (noted: a feedback suggests that this should be General Assembly resolution 1514), colonies have right for self determination, meaning colonies can determine whether to go independent, remain status quo, etc.

As of 14th December 1946, United Nations General Assembly still recognised Hong Kong as one of the non-self-governing colonies. It is important to note that the definition of Hong Kong included Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, New Territories, outer islands and relevant territorial water (New Territories and outer islands in Hong Kong were “leased to the British for 99 years” in the Treaty of Nanking – please also note in Chinese language, 99 is a symbol representing “forever” and “eternity”).

As stated in the Article 73 (b) of the Charter of the United Nations: Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

  1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
  2. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
  3. to further international peace and security;
  4. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and
  5. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.

According to this Article, Hong Kong should have gone self-governing even if it had not gone independent. What is the reason for “being returned to China”? (note: “being returned to China” here consist the fact that people of Hong Kong were NOT informed nor consulted about this “decision” and were left with no choice but to “be returned to China”)

This is all because of the trickery China played. In 1972, just before the United Nations was going to pass Resolution 2908 (Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), China threatened the members that they have to agree on taking Hong Kong and Macau off the list of colonies in the EU. At that time, Fiji, Sweden and Venezuela objected this notion. The UK, based on the mainstream public opinion (which was remain to be a British colony, a status quo), wrote to the Secretary-General of the UN, objecting the General Assembly’s resolution that Hong Kong is China’s territory. Given that China had (and still has) a lot of “friends” in the UN, the UK had no choice but to accept the resolution and to focus on getting the the best for Hong Kong in preparation of it “being returned to China”.

This is how Hong Kong ended up having to be handed over to China. The noise calling for Hong Kong independence that recently surfaced is reasonable and legitimate.

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.

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

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

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。

Hong Kong is still a Colony

Hong Kong is still a colony

This video was first uploaded on Youtube few weeks ago in Cantonese. English subtitle version is now available to help the fellow Hong Kongers who don’t speak Cantonese and the rest of the world understand what’s the CCP government doing to Hong Kong.

This bloke in the video is quite famous to netizens in Hog Kong. He’s famous for mocking the CCP-HKSAR government and producing clips that take the mickey out of politicians and has never been seen serious in front of camera.