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.

Hong Kongers Awaking

Read this piece in late Feb (this has been sitting in my draft box for a while…) and find it explains a lot of things and reminds me how myself (or many other pro-independence Hong Kongers) come to support Hong Kong’s independence.

Hong Kong has long been separated from the PRC (China), under the colonial time Hong Kong advanced a lot faster than its neighbourhood PRC, and had been living a more comfortable life. Somehow, this became a “guilt” – similar to the so-called white guilt, and subconsciously think that Hong Kong has to help or even compensate China.

This nationalistic idea has rooted deep down and muddled up Hong Kongers’ self identity – Are we Chinese (race)? Are we British (nationality)? Are we Hong Konger (ethnicity)?

Because of the guilt, Hong Kongers had (to many still have) zero resistance to the “ideas” of “we are all Chinese” and “blood is thicker than water”. Hence, many pan-democrats and social movements focus solely on this “nationalist” ideology amongst most Hong Kongers. Supporting Peking students back in 1989, Li Wangyang’s “suicide” case, are just two examples – it’s a matter of doing the right thing but not necessarily because “we are all Chinese”. The so called pan-democrats are hijacking Hong Kongers’ empathy for the injustice in PRC, and hooking it to the nationalist ideology. Gradually (after decades) PRC’s democratic development became the precondition of Hong Kong’s democratic movement – if China doesn’t have democracy, Hong Kong will never have democracy, hence Hong Kongers should help PRC’s democracy.

Communist China sees this logical fallacy and guilt amongst Hong Kongers, and they demand Hong Kongers to pay their debt – making Hong Kongers contribute and became their stepping stone to economic boom. Luring Hong Kongers with hot money, uncontrolled tourists, and many other so-called economic benefits (how is having China companies listing in Hong Kong benefit the people of Hong Kong? This helps Chinese companies to have access to global investors and Hong Kongers’ money) to achieve PRC’s assimilation scheme.

Communist China uses Hong Kongers’ guilt to make them believe China is still the underprivileged and Hong Kongers have the obligations to help and save China. It does not make any sense to demand a city-state with 7 million people to support and resolve problems for a country with a population of 1.3 billion!

The author of this commentary said that he’s glad to see Hong Kongers are awaking recently – “unload their guilt” and stand up for the local’s rights and livelihood.

He quoted that Krystian Zimerman, who vowed would not return to the US until George W. Bush was out of office in protest of America’s placement of a missile defense shield in Poland, saying “get your hands off of my country” and said it fits Hong Kong’s situation perfectly. Communist China has been invading Hong Kong since the handover of its sovereignty on multiple levels – population, politics, education and economy. CY Leung, the Chief Executive, insists on paying attention to the feelings and needs of Chinese in the PRC. Law enforcement units side with Mainland Chinese smugglers, local “politicians” repeatedly emphasis the needs for Hong Konger to embrace Mainland Chinese because they are the underprivileged” even though they break laws and disrupt Hong Kong’s society.

Hong Kongers have the right to say to these traitors and invaders “GET YOUR HANDS OFF OF MY HOME!”

Press Freedom Erodes

This is a relatively old news (published a couple weeks ago), but is certainly worth reading as it shows that Hong Kong’s press freedom is being threatened, and the mission is ordered directly by the HKSAR government…

Roy Tang Yun-kwong, Director of Broadcasting is alleged to have interfered RTHK’s freedom in producing programmes. According to news report published on 13th March, Tang said that he does not intervene editorial freedom and independence.

However, an email he issued to the production team went public shortly after the rumours about him infringing upon RTHK’s press freedom and he’s under political missions from Peking/HKSAR government, including the refusal of renewing the contract with the current Acting Assistant Direct, Forever Sze Wing-yuen, also nicknamed “the last samurai of RTHK”, who refused to carry out politicial missions Tang ordered.

Tang said in a Legislative Council hearing that the production team of Headliner, RTHK’s popular TV programme on current affairs, suggested to use Hitler and other Nazis characters in one section of the programme that satirise social issues (the section is currently using Empress Dowager and an eunuch as the key characters). He, however, thought that using Hitler and Nazis related characters would cause controversies and demanded the production team to ditch the plan. The team, at the end, voluntarily changed their programme design (the team changed their plan because they found other characters that are more suitable than the Hitler idea, but not surrendering to Tang’s command).

An anonymous letter which includes an email Tang issued to the production team at Headliner, was sent to the media following Tang’s hearinRTHK (source: AM730)

Tang has no experience in the media sector prior to joining RTHK. His ability and leadership was questioned when he was appointed.

The public concerns that the above email by Tang shows that any ideas on programme production has to get “clearance” from the Director or the government. Some public figures also suspect that Tang was given the political mission to “sanitise” RTHK.

HK reporter got beaten up in Peking

Breaking news!!!

A female HK reporter currently working on an assignment about Why Yang (also translated as “Yang Kuang”), a HK activist who went to the building block where Liu Xia lives (wife of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu XiaoBo who’s been under house arrest for over 2 years with no legitimate reason) was surrounded and beaten up by at least 5 police in China.

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

Leaders of the PRC (China)

Pro-democracy, pro-HK-Independence and anti-CCP Facebook groups have been circulating an image in recent days – direct quotes from Premier Wen JiaBao’s government work report. Below is a translation of the caption:

43 Rounds of Applause 5 Years Ago…

“(We can) definitely guarantee the basic stability of market supply and market price”

“Make our motherland’s mountains greener, water clearer, sky more blue”

“We must ensure that our people’s minds are at easy when they eat and use (products), and make our export products to enjoy good reputation”

“(We will allow) everyone to enjoy basic health care services”

“We must be determined to push forward (our) real estate reform and development, making people and the public to live in peace and enjoy one’s work (note: a Chinese saying which means a stable and secured life with a roof above one’s head)”

“Only through distributing the fruits of economic development to the public, the harmony and stability of a society can be improved”

Five years have passed, NONE of the above was achieved.

Image

 

 

 

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”

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.

 

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.

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.