Monday, 30 June 2014

陶傑英文專欄︰中國夢的黑暗一角

中國夢的黑暗一角
Translated by Tracy F. and Karen L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 陶傑 (Chip Tsao)
Original: http://hk-magazine.com/city-living/column/dark-corner-beyond-china-dream 


   (Source: ET Net [left] and Apple Daily [right])


北京對香港的自由默唸緊箍咒,一聲令下,以後在港任職的法官均要謹遵「愛國」原則判案。

根據北京公布的白皮書,香港的各級法官均隸屬行政機關,統統都是「官」。白皮書固然偏離司法獨立的精神,還意圖毀掉數百位法官的前途。不少在港任職的外籍法官是從英國及澳洲等地而來的,面對白皮書的「愛國」命令又豈能自處?再說,但凡英式法庭傳統的假髮也好,法袍也好,總之落在「愛國」中國人的眼中,一律不是什麼順眼之物。

北京一向看不過眼那群存於香港司法制度下的「白皮異種」和一個個受普通法洗腦的「黃皮走狗」。2012年,教授程潔在清華大學法學院舉辦的公開論壇更揚言,香港法官應具有中國國籍,甚至只能由華裔人士擔任。刻下頒令的白皮書白紙黑字列明法官必須「愛國」,提醒「愛國」要求絕非突發,而是早早訂立的。鬼佬法官還想保住飯碗?僅僅愛到鯉魚門吃蒸魚,這種愛太薄弱,唯有判案時充分顯示出自己夠「愛國」,這才能滿足北京。

這樣說來,近期為數不少的案件都應重審。前廉政專員湯顯明的受賄案必然也在名單之上。愛國湯任內出訪內地期間,與大陸官員交流民族感情,獲贈送一箱又一箱貴價茅台和禮品。可憐的湯一心想獨享祖國的愛,不向港府通報,卻被誣指為貪污。一群「非愛國者」以反貪腐為名,迫害「愛國者」,究竟憑什麼?憑在反中殖民時期起草的法例嗎?說到底,這種「愛」還不得光明正大之名。

至於「中央實質任命」的前政務司司長許仕仁,「愛國之心」實無容置疑。許涉嫌勾結地產財團,犯下的「世紀巨貪案」現正開審。九人陪審團的隨機遴選,猶如六合彩,如何保障其「愛國素質」呢?中國至今尚未表明對許仕仁事件的立場,陪審團也不知該擺什麼立場來實踐「愛國」的判決。要是按中央那套來審,更是模凌兩可,舉薄熙來一案即顯而易見,「愛國者」一不是「無罪」,就是「叛國」,極端得很。白皮書一出籠,不只意味要盡快用普通話審案,更代表要馬上諮詢北京對這宗「世紀巨貪案」的看法,好下判決。中國夢藍圖缺失的一角就靠梁振英來填補了。

Hung Ho-fung: HK's fight against white paper preludes much greater war on Chinese imperialism

Hong Kong's fight against white paper preludes much greater war on Chinese imperialism
Translated by Vivian L., Written by 孔誥烽 (Hung Ho-fung)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-27-2014/16860 


Beijing's white paper officially denounced the end of the one country, two system policy. Widely regarded as the main author and mastermind of the Hong Kong white paper, Jiang Shigong, Peking University Law School Professor, is recently on the hype among China's state media such as People's Daily where he explained Beijing's thoughts behind the white paper in interviews. In one interview, Jiang went so far as to state as fact that the Basic Law came from China's constitution, not from the formally signed Sino-British Joint Declaration. Such statement is a total disregard of the treaty made between two heads of governments, essentially writing the city's constitution off as a trifling matter one can doodle as one pleases.

Who is the author of the white paper?


Who is Jiang Shigong? What is his philosophy regarding Hong Kong affairs? And what does that have to say about Beijing? To put it simply, Jiang's philosophy is a hybrid of extreme-right fascism and extreme-left Maoism of this age. His work in political theorising and in shaping of the public discourse is pivotal in Bejing's quest for a modern imperialistic China. The law professor had penned his philosophies into his book titled "Hong Kong China: Political and Cultural Perspective" (Hong Kong Oxford University Press, 2008).

Chan Koon-chung, a liberal China-loyalist, and Wan Chin, a principal proponent of the Hong Kong City-State Autonomy Movement, have both systemically critiqued Jiang's book from their respective standpoints. But their criticism had gone on without causing a ripple in the public intellectual sphere.

Relentlessly criticised the American imperialism and neoliberalism as a means to defend PRC's party-state capitalism since 1990s, the Chinese New Lefts had grown ever more radical, advocated assimilation of right-wing nationalist beliefs such as Marxism, Maoism and Neo-Confucianism, and the assertion of Leo Strauss and Nazi legal theoretician Carl Schmitt. Jiang Shigong is among those in the new left intellectual community. He served as a conduit for the Schmitt philosophy and the Nazi science of law into Chinese politics: The primary of role of politics is to draw a distinction between friend and enemy, and to defend sovereignty by being in a continual state of emergency.  The rule of law and the parliamentary system are just an unnecessary hindrance.

Jiang was appointed researcher in Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong from 2004 to 2007, a position that he took advantage of to expand his network locally. Many so-called pro-democracy scholars have had a few luncheons with, and pulled a few strings for their friend from the north. During his term in the liaison office, Jiang published a series of articles in a Beijing journal detailing his views on the Hong Kong problem, the revival of Confucianism and a new Chinese empire in the making. These articles paved the way for the writing of his book. Although Jiang's opinions did not particularly stand out among the new left, the notable positions he held in Peking University law school and the liaison office had made him an exemplar of a new left who managed to work his way up in the party-state hierarchy.

The promise of "One Country, Two Systems" could ensure the successful handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Jiang asserted. But since the handover, such a promise has become superfluous. The notion of "One Country, Two Systems" did not offer much help to Beijing as China sought to tackle the most challenging conundrum to its sovereignty over the city—the question of Hong Kong people's national identity. Jiang held that the solution called upon politics and ideology, rather than the law. Beijing must think outside the one-country-two-system box, and use direct political and ideological intervention to turn Hongkongers into patriotic Chinese. Otherwise, China's sovereignty over Hong Kong would exist in name only.

"One Country, Two Systems": an ad hoc promise to shun opposition of "returning to China"


From Jiang's point of view, most Hongkongers, who have familial roots in mainland China, have the heart of patriot that may have been buried deep down (Hong Kong, China, pp. 142-5). Thus, Beijing's first priority is to help Hong Kong's ethnic Chinese to discover their true hearts. Jiang claimed that the British colonial government was good at "brainwashing and winning people's hearts", one tactic that Beijing should follow. Particular attention should be drawn to how Jiang had translated "winning hearts and minds" into Chinese as literally "brainwashing and winning hearts", changing the nuance of a concept universally acknowledged (ibid., p. 31). Beijing must implement ideological work in Hong Kong and at the same time wipe out any local identity, Jiang implied. In hindsight, Beijing's agenda on Hong Kong—the 'patriotic' national education, teaching Chinese language in Putonghua, etc.—closely echoed Jiang's judgement and recommendations.

Jiang argued that Hong Kong's "One Country, Two Systems", modelled after the 1951 seventeen-point agreement between Tibet and Beijing, not only catalysed the handover, it also signified the comeback of the Chinese imperial epoch (ibid., pp. 123-58). The prosperity of the Chinese empire during the Qing dynasty was built upon a Confucian culture that radiated outward and unified surrounding regions, all the while maintaining the empire at the very centre. When a newly acquired territory has a marked culture and a self-governing leader, the Qing emperor would allow the local elites to exercise partial autonomy for a while—until its culture is assimilated and its autonomy confiscated. At this point, the empire would expand even further and acquire more new territories, repeating the same assimilation process. Now that The People's Republic of China has resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong and that it has eye on Taiwan are both signs pointing to China's bid to rekindle the imperialistic expansion in the 21st century. Jiang's intentions are obvious: Hong Kong's "One Country, Two Systems" was merely a ploy and a transitional plan. When the time comes, Hong Kong would be reconstructed into the post-1959 Tibet—forced to be assimilated with PRC and be ruled under Beijing's suffocating rule. When assimilation is over, Beijing is safe to resume its conquest for new lands.

Connecting Jiang's theory on Hong Kong, his ideals for the "celestial empire", with Beijing's white paper, we can get a glimpse into China's plan for Hong Kong: the first step of its quest towards the rebirth of a celestial empire.  In exercising comprehensive control over Hong Kong, China shows the world that it has the power to deter intervention from the United States and to deliberately taunt Britain—the cosignatory of the Joint Declaration—as lacking in courage and competence. Once established, Beijing's comprehensive control over Hong Kong will sound a warning to Taiwan and other countries around Asia. On that note, Hongkongers' fight against Beijing's white paper is not merely a dispute over domestic affairs, but a prelude to a much greater war of Asia and the rest of the world against the reincarnation of the Chinese Celestial Empire.

Thursday, 26 June 2014

Pan Lei: Who is at loggerheads with Christians?

Who is at loggerheads with Christians?

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L. and Kristeeq, Written by Pan Lei 

It can be lonely for one to be a Christian in this day and age: on social occasions, religion is definitely not a comfortable topic (especially in front of nonbelievers); in the mainstream media, we usually see more negative rather than positive news about Christians, and some Christians might even think the media is hostile towards them. And what is more, we, as Christians, have to bear all those brunt, including ridiculing of some of our habits and thoughts as well as doubts about our faith. How should we react in this seemingly hostile society?

Two months ago, I wrote an article, entitled If Christians Don't Know How to Respect in Macau Times, which was then reposted in The News Lens, a Taiwan website with lots of discussion threads. Among the comments, most seemed to agree that there is a lack of respect from Christians towards other cultures and religions, echoing their vigorous dislike upon Christianity. Several viral videos online were cited as examples: a preacher "dismembered" a Kuan-yin (Goddess of Mercy) statue; some Christians damaged several Buddhist ritual implements and a pastor asked God to help a sister to recover her hymen.

For a long time, I have realised that Christianity is not respected in the modern world, but still I am shocked by people's intense hatred of the belief system. Indeed, Taiwan is a specific context of this topic and does not represent an isolated incident. General emotional resistance towards certain Christians' behaviour and reasoning is appearent among the community. Viewing this phenomenon from a delusional perspective, some Christians feel "persecuted", some choose to pass the buck to the "evil spirits", and some even state this reaction as demonstration of "decline of moral values". No matter what there are always some people to propose such an opinion: "This is an epoch in which Christians face hostility everywhere. To step back and comprise are not options, instead we should persevere against adversity and stand firm!"

I wonder how there are so many people intent on "persecuting Christians". In Discussions on The Society for Truth and Light written by Daniel Cheung Kwok-tung, an epistemologist studying religion-related topics, what attracts me most are not the analyses nor the criticisms on The Society for Truth and Light (STT, a fundamentalist Christian organisation against homosexual marriage), but the related discussions of evangelicalism inside, a conservative Protestant movement founded in American, of which it was generated by some believers' presumption of themselves living in a hostile society.

Back in the 1960s, the era of civil movements, there was a "de-religionisation" trend in the States: for the sake of religion neutrality, praying was banned in public schools. Instead, the "evolutionism" entered the curriculum, and abortion was legalised by the society. It struck the nerve of many believers, who then claimed themselves as the "Moral Majority", and aimed to "Take America Back for God". In order to strengthen its influence, they led the movement's development to another level – to be allied with the Republicans, the conservative power in the political field. Some evangelical pastors opposed environmental protection policies for Bush's government, and some extreme believers even launched demonstration at the funeral of soldiers who had been serving in Iraq, because they had faith that God was punishing the morally degenerate country.

These kind of Christians conceive that society is brewing a "cultural war", attempting to persecute Christians in the name of "political correctness" by all means. They believe that those "extreme liberalists" are in line with mainstream media, so as to make Christians desperate.

But are their thoughts the truth? Doesn't what they deduce follow a practice of retrocausality? The case might not be people using Christians' kinds of ideologies (such as human rights, freedom, multi-culturalism, rational thinking...)as weapons to "strike" Christians. In other words, Christianity isn't the object of attack to the general public, but rather certain behaviours by people as Christians. It's not personal but is being judged on its own merits. It's possibly the time for certain Christians to let go of the impulsive "counter-attack" and with open-mindedness, to think about why the world has changed, to see if non-Christian's thoughts are reasonable in some way. And how should the communication between Christians and non-Christians proceed.

Satan might not be the enemy who criticised you, but rather your own mind, like delusional disorder or paranoia. On the contrary, people who criticised you might be angels bringing a space of self-reflection. In today's society, if you, as a Christian, feel alone and not understood by others, what you have to do isn't to immediately start a war against those "imaginary enemies". You, and us too if it suits our descriptions, should sit down and reflect upon ourselves. The lesson is to learn the way to respect and to communicate with the world in a better way.

(Macau Times, May 2014)

Lewis: The Bible-bashers’ Fear of Democracy

The Bible-bashers' fear of democracy
Translated by Vivian L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 盧斯達 (Lewis Loud)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-25-2014/16824 

                                                                               (Execution of Marie Antoinette)

Outspoken Christian celebrity Zac Koo Ho-ching (translator's note: Zac Koo is often dubbed "Bishop Koo" by netizens for his tireless but often wrong public preaching of the Christ faith) recently "reposted" a post on Facebook. Annoyingly spiritual as it could possibly be, there was in fact a passage worthy of pondering upon:
"We must understand that 'democracy' is not the absolute truth. A society where people are masters more often than not steers men away from God and into a road to vanity and pride."
Bible bashers like Zac Koo are hostile towards the notion of "people as masters".  Though not the value of modern western societies, such an attitude has its root as far back as 1789. Like the Neo-Confucian in Song Dynasty where there had been debates on "nature's principles and human desires", Christianity had had a similar spiritual ideal of God's power ruling over men's desires.

At the time of the French Revolution (1789-1799), old ideas were overthrown under the mantra of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", thus followed were the rise of democracies and the spread of nationalism globally, setting the theme of the whole 19th century. Democrats and socialists were both among the proponents of The French Revolution. Meanwhile, scholars and critics offered fierce opposition to the Revolution. They reasoned that not only did the Revolution cause massive fatalities, when ordinary people were to become masters, the consequences could also be unfathomable: nationalists would trample the divine right of the monarchy, and populism would pervert the Constitution and subvert the empire. To those in the opposition, the massive destruction during the Revolution was living proof of the indulgence of human desires and corruption of morality.

The idea that "democracy is not the absolute truth", and that democracy steers the commoners into "a road to vanity and pride" are not an invention by bible bashers in this day and age, but of the political conservatism that came back to power after 1789. Only one year after the Revolution broke out, Irish politician Edmund Burke penned and published his conservatism classic Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke fiercely attacked the Revolution by prophesying that France would fall under a Reign of Terror. Burke wrote:
Law overturned; tribunals subverted; industry without vigour; commerce expiring; the revenue unpaid, yet the people impoverished, a church pillaged, and a state not relieved; civil and military anarchy made the constitution of the kingdom; every thing human and divine sacrificed to the idol of public credit.
Those who are under heavy influence of the traditions of humanism since the Renaissance would think that men are rational, a trait that is of great value to humanity. A learned man would progress and gain wisdom, and would in turn act for the good of himself and others.

The pessimistic conservatives (who possibly are also bible bashers), on the other hand, would think that men's stupidity is as incurable as his original sin. Without the guidance of God, the Church and the clergy, the hegemony of humanism in their minds, would only result in anarchy and chaos just like what happened in the French Revolution. Men are all sinned. An ordinary person who boasts of being any more "rational" than his fellow men is especially sinful and defiant of God. Any decision that any "rational" man made out of self-righteousness would only bring disasters unto themselves.

Democracy is the preferred form of government over other systems because we assume that most people are rational, that they are capable of making decisions for the benefits of themselves, their community and their nation. But this is a questionable proposition. Totalitarianism rests its faith on the party and on its leaders. It sees people as decadent who makes only trouble. This is where traditional Chinese values meets Christian right extremism. These seemingly unrelated doctrines could work in synergy because they share similar ideologies. The Chinese collective subconscious places its hope on a great emperor. The commoners must pray for the king to lead the country to prosperity; while the Christian faith posits that men have a crippled soul that is inherently sinful. The sinners must be helped by God and guided by the church. Individual empowerment thus, in the eye of Conservatives, translates as the triumph of human desire, and of vanity and pride.

Be it LGBT rights or democratic revolution, it is a time when ordinary people step up to overthrow the presence who exists nowhere but who take charge in everything--the almighty "God". But bible bashers question and antagonise democracy because of Christianity's fundamental view on human nature: Men are weak and impotent. Men should lean not unto his own understanding, but believeth in the Lord with all their hearts. Such spiritual mentality in the modern world, in the political sphere especially, would breed a pack of bigoted subjects under the dominion of authoritarianism.

The fears of freedom, of individualism, and of rationality, ultimately cultivate fascism.  In Nazi Germany, there were still churches. But only that the Bible was replaced with a "Nazi Bible", which was rewritten to promote submission to authority, nation and the leaders. Bigoted Christians in today's Hong Kong fall into the arms of fascism's twin brother. They cried in fear: People to be masters of their own and elect its leaders? "Civil nomination"? How can that be? What if some anti-China hooligan is elected? What if 'Long-hair' becomes the next Chief Executive? What if the future CE has Athlete's foot? 

Therefore bible bashers would rather side with the commies. It is only natural that religion would be used as a tool to effect authoritarian rule. bible bashers love their God. But God is metaphysical. So there needs to be someone to execute God's will, someone like Xi Jinping, the Politburo and Leung Chun-ying.

In the post-imperial Europe where monarchs had been beheaded, empires had fallen and nation states had risen, Christianity was once and for all shoved out of the political arena. Deprived of a home, Christianity became a bastard child, drifting aimlessly to find its next political power to latch onto. At last, in despotic Asia, Christianity finds its new Garden of Eden. Bigoted Christians are all over Hong Kong. From Rev. Patrick So Wing-chi (note 1), to entertainer Zac Koo (note 2), to pro-Beijing hunger striker Leticia Lee (note 3), the list goes on and on... These are angels of death who herald the revival of the politics of obscurantism while Hongkongers await their doom.

    [Translator's note:
  1. A homophobe himself, Rev. Patrick So Wing-chi of The Yan Fuk Church had, on numerous occasions, publicly condemned the gay right law proposal that sought to protect LGBT from discrimination. Rev. So had openly endorsed a number of pro-Beijing LegCo runners and then CE candidates CY Leung.
  2. A philander in his youth, Zac Koo now tirelessly preaches his fans abstinence from premarital sex and submission to authority.
  3. Leticia Lee See-yin, convener of “Justice Alliance” and a self-proclaimed Christian, begun an indefinite hunger strike to protest against “radical activists” and to demand government suppression of democratic activism. ]

Wednesday, 25 June 2014

Gnimmm: No Holds Barred Even Cosplaying in Red Guards' Costume

No Holds Barred Even Cosplaying in Red Guards' Costume
Translated by Karen L., Edited by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Gnimmm
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/06/21/76008 

During World War II, rising Nazi in Germany had been committing crimes against humanity – the holocaust. Their costume, symbol and slogans has become taboos in Europe since the war was over. 

Facing the sin, German has made sincere apologies to the public for what they had done, insisting not to dwell with mistakes anymore and confining themselves to their moral rules. You won’t find yourself hearing any German making Nazis jokes. You won’t find portrait of Adolf Hitler hanging on the Brandenburg Gate. Distinct difference can be observed between Germany and those countries escaping from the past.



文化大革命
                                                                A graduation photo of some mainland Chinese graduates

It is an innocent idea of us assuming every student from mainland China was brainwashed given that their Chairman Mao’s figure is there reminding every second of the history. Those intellectuals moving from mainland China to Hong Kong acquaint the CCP’s bloodstained history as well as its achievements – the unstoppable ability to outperform most of the countries economically in 60 years, even the Great Britain in old times. The monitored Internet network combined with the shielded flow of information in mainland China is not sophisticated enough to block everything within the defensive wall. It is by no means graduates would have not known that the beloved personage Mao Zedong in their country was a ruffian and that communist party is a dreadfully extreme cult.

Some graduates in mainland China celebrated their graduation cosplaying themselves as Red Guards and class enemies in the struggle session. It’s an unlikely postulation towards their ignorance of Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square protests. Instead, a dégagé value would make more sense – let bygones be bygones. 

Pursuing the China dream, it is to know which way the wind blows. Thought of “Why so serious with the Red Guards’ outfit?” emblematise an interpretation of this dream, even if it’s a profoundly barbaric reminder to victims of the massacre. Those graduates on the photos surely do not settle in the classification of rare occurrence disrespecting the ones who suffered, but worse, their ideology as accomplices is in accord with the entire China's spirit – denying explicitly the carnage they brought.

CCP agitates patriotism, stirring waves of attacks on Japanese-based companies. The Chinese, virtually, is a exact opposite existence of rootlessness. It is to be expected that one having no ties with one's country and one without wisdom would not accept the country's attainments along with its blames, not to mention facing the history.

To them, the ten-year cultural catastrophe is the matter of their grandparents' generation; Tian'anmen Massacre is the matter of their parents' generation; today's China dominates the world in their generation, therefore what happened in the previous generations stay in the previous generations. Ancient history or today's community arouse no interest and concern in them, no matter it's Tang Dynasty's fascinating progress or the serious pollution problems nowadays.

Their national identities, even compared with Hongkongers, are vaguer. It's every man for himself in their minds, extending the western definition of individualism. This is how they are not feeling ashamed in Red Guards’ outfit. The weight of history and consciousness of the sense of shame are absent, and only money composes their lives.

That is why Chinese, if not all, aims to flee from China for a better future -- a secured livelihood and moneyhood.

Mao Zedong's Portrait hanging on Tian'anmen is an ignominious and bizarre presence to foreigners. But it's rather normal like any other decoration, no difference with a curtain on a certain wall to mainland Chinese. 

Amid Asian countries, Japanese would gnash their teeth over its nationality failures; Korean is a face-saving nationality, even sometimes it means to having unfair advantages; though the merry smile on those mainland Chinese graduates in red-star caps tells their numbness of their own land.

These must have been the "unworldly" picture of their minds:
The reflecting glory disperses as drifting clouds
Grudge comes to naught as soap bubbles
None of my business anyways
We’re men without a country

Sunday, 22 June 2014

Arnold Fang: For HKers who have shut themselves out of the real HK quite some time

For HKers who have shut themselves out of the real HK quite some time
Translated by Karen L., Written by Arnold Fang
Original: https://www.facebook.com/notes/10152597967330676/ 



Read this or not?

Dear readers, 
If you are capable of recognising "離地" (Translator's note: lei4 dei6, "ex-situ" in English, is a term originally describing things that are off the ground. But now it is used to describe that although people are living in HK, they do not know much about the reality of HK, or as the title suggests, they chose to "shut themselves out of the real HK") or know yourself well enough excluding in this category, you are not mainly targeted for this article. Yet, it would be nice if you could share this article to anyone who might need to construct understanding of this concept and the related issues. 


For the target audience of this article, you may either have been living a relatively comfortable life in an "ex-situ" manner or centring your daily activities stably in Hong Kong while shutting yourselves away morally from this city - Regardless of its changes, the political system remains irrelevant of your interest as long as it doesn't get in your way directly.



The following is my letter to Hong Kong. You will be informed that the real Hong Kong is distinctly far from what you've thought you know. And what messages you've been receiving may solely reflect opinions of a few individuals or part of the issue of this community. This article is also written to bring you a piece of advice. 



Mainstream media's interpretation of "defiance" 



In your minds, Hong Kong may go into a messy track these days. Last week, the media covered the story in which protesters stormed the LegCo building. For the "whys", your unfavorable perception on these aggressive scenes might overrule your objectivity to penetrate the dense fog before judgement. Demonstrators are condemned by your kind of their radical behaviours requesting for government's response. 



I'd been there in person. The extensive coverage of "radical" actions happened only for 2-3 minutes in real world, carried out by a few individuals among all protesters. What didn't capture media was the rest of the protesters, who sat peacefully within the protest zone for the whole time. Not even slightly touched the breach of law, these protesters were also dragged away by the police force. Some even said that they were removed from the area and were treated violently afterwards. How many of these "side stories" have been seen in the public eye?



What does "defiance" stand for and what doesn't? The definition in our heads, mostly forms after media's screening. For what you and I know are inevitably insufficient if we're not involved physically. It may need to take more than time to know one's sense of mission and it may be hard to imagine that every single step we've made started from the moment we walk out of our doorsteps is a step of defiance. Why, exactly why do we have to choose living in such a miserable way?


What if we don’t fight against the existing unjustified situation?


The chaos happened in last week derives from the system's injustice. The council is here to make decisions important enough to affect the whole city, however, dominance position shared by pro-Beijing camp and business sector are created in the design of the current election system. These supporting voices added with Mainland China's actual economic and power penetration, is expected to overwhelm local's needs and wants. The locals' thoughts are not going to be heard. 



Recently, increasing members of pro-Beijing camp in both LegCo and District Board are recorded. Yet it's an extreme case for the pan-democracy camp. Elements causing the situation can be analysed as full support given to pan-Beijing camp and gradual split evolved from political divergence within pan-democracy camp through years of struggles. For the latter element, I'll describe it as 17 years of exhaustion.


Right now, we're discussing certain political reform for the future including selecting Chief Executive in 2017 and electing LegCo counsellors through full democracy in 2020. These two, can be the twist of the injustice deeply rooted in our system. But while the government advocates their slogan "Let's Talk and Achieve Universal Suffrage", they have been acting the other round - shutting many suggested schemes out of the discussion. The government has insisted that only Chief Executive candidates be nominated by a "nominating committee" is an appropriate manner complying with Basic Law.

But here’s the problem: How will this "nominating committee" be constructed? What kind of committees will they bring us, the ones supported by the citizens or those accepted by the central government only?

Everything is in the details which need further discussions. Somehow the government set "a definitive tone" to kill the other possibilities even before the time to reach conclusion. 

Whether the political reform will bring us an election system with full democracy or a controlled pseudo-democratic system? After all, it depends on ourselves. If we simply give it up, all we'll have is a system designed according to the authority's will. Isn't it unfair to citizens?


Put your knowledge and wisdom in a right position: fight for it and spread this message widely


Some of you may think you have no obligation to safeguard and improve Hong Kong political system as you no longer live here. But for your family and friends who still set their lives in Hong Kong and for your empathy to bring people happiness through a rather complete political system, you should do something.


And some of you may have a rather stable life in Hong Kong or you may not need this government to do anything for you. But this, is not an issue in personal font, but for everybody in the city. And signs are there that the deep-rooted structural imbalance is becoming harder to solve than ever. If you’re tired to hearing any defiance voices again, you’ll have the obligation with you to make sure the justice and fairness are to be practiced in the council and that people have their representatives to speak up for them. Only in this way will the policy discussion afterwards be underwent in a civilised way. 


In the following week, Hong Kong citizens can express their views on the yet-to-come political system through online referendum. Even the options over there are still limited in this stage, this is a chance for us to emphasis the importance of possessing an election system which lives up to international standards.



For Hongkongers located in Hong Kong, please take some time (a 2-minute video) to look at your options, and vote within 20-29 June.



For those who presently located in other places, who isn't included as voters, please share the message of the importance of an efficient election system to your family and friends and encourage them to vote. 



For whom who have helped or voted after reading this article, you all owe a debt of gratitude of us. 

Thursday, 19 June 2014

Man Fungtat: Hong Kong in the Year 1984 vs Czechoslovakia in the Year 1938

Hong Kong in the Year 1984 vs Czechoslovakia in the Year 1938
Translated and written by Man Fungtat (萬逢達/協紀辨方)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-15-2014/16355 



Ming Pao quoted a source from the Chinese Foreign Ministry that China intends to sign an Outcome Document in the 30th  anniversary of the Joint Declaration, during Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to the United Kingdom. Whether Li can make the trip is yet to be confirmed. The Times of London reported that “the trip would be in jeopardy unless royal meeting was on the agenda”. So it depends on the decision of the Queen whether to host a meeting with this boorish guest. But no matter what the result is, a Hong Konger with a good mind should not expect too much from the United Kingdom on her commitment towards the Hongkongers against the lucrative Chinese market. Anyway, it won’t make much difference whether the United Kingdom signs the Outcome Document or not. The funeral has been arranged. The coffin is here, the priest is ready, the bouquets are there, the candles are lighted. You don’t need the nail in the coffin to get convinced that the guy is dead.

The nails, however, do make a difference to some Hongkongers. You can’t expect too much for the intelligence of Hongkongers in politics. They are exactly the guys who are the last to get convinced only when they see the coffin gets nailed. Many Hongkongers only came to get alarmed when the State Council of PRC announced the White Paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (the White Paper). They just couldn’t imagine PRC dared to violate the Joint Declaration, an international treaty. Oh, please don’t blame on those Hongkongers, they grew up with soap operas produced by Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB). Every Hong Konger grew up with soap operas, so don’t tell me you are more intelligent than others.

As many who are interested in politics are those guys getting alarmed when the coffin gets nailed, you come to understand why many Hongkongers are still having unrealistic wishes on the United Kingdom. Many do imagine someday the British will return and rule over Hong Kong again. Okay, maybe you were still in your mother’s womb when the Joint Declaration was signed, maybe you think that the Democrats who advocated unification with China at that time should take full responsibility, fine. So please explain the following:

  1. The Six monthly Reports on Hong Kong published since the handover are just like copy and paste printouts, every report just says the "One Country, Two Systems" works well, ignoring the fact that Hong Kong’s autonomy is under jeopardy;
  2. The mainstream media in the West, amongst which BBC can best represent the United Kingdom, gave numerous biased reports favouring the mainland Chinese against Hongkongers. (You can read more details from this page) When the Hongkongers took photos on misbehaviour of the Chinese tourists, the Hongkongers were criticised as "fascists" and "discrimination". In Hong Kong-China conflicts, the media in the West did not give a hand to Hongkongers, but blamed on the Hongkongers instead;
  3. The PRC stated clearly in the White Paper that the PRC government had “overall jurisdiction” over Hong Kong. This was a breach of the Joint Declaration, which promised “One Country, Two Systems” for Hong Kong. As a signatory of the Declaration, the United Kingdom first remained silent, then paid the lip service by releasing a press release under the pressure of Hong Kong netizens.

From the above clues, we can see clearly that Hong Kong in 1984 was in the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

In the year 1938, the generous British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew to Munich to sign a treaty with Hitler, pressing Czechoslovakia to cede Sudetenland to Germany, with the absence of the representative of Czechoslovakia, hoping that could satisfy the appetite of Hitler. What came next was the full annexation of Czechoslovakia, and the invasion of Poland in the next year, leading to the outbreak of the World War II. Chamberlain’s appeasement was a total failure.

The way that the United Kingdom dealt with China was just like how she dealt with Hitler. In a word: appeasement. At the time of Sino-British negotiations, there were many Hongkongers hoping to have their voices heard, but there was never a representative of Hongkongers on the negotiation table. The PRC and Hitler shared the same vices of reneging on the treaties signed; they treated international treaties as tools for territorial gains; they had serious victims complex; and hostile towards international order and respect on contracts.

The Great Britain gave a much more mighty impression than she is. During the Second Opium War, the Qing Emperor and his officials hoped they could fend off the Anglo-French envoys en route to Peking by playing tricks. The British responded by blowing up the forts and sending troops inland into Peking. The Summer Palaces were burnt down. That was the way how the British used to deal with Chinese. The comments of the Chinese by the Europeans at that time: ignorant but wiseacre, lack of the sense of honour, which are still applicable to the Chinese today. In contrast, the way that the British handled the “barbarians” degenerates with her influence on global affairs.

So for the Hongkongers, you can rely on nobody but yourselves. You are the only saviour of your homeland. No others owe you such responsibility. Those who help themselves get the help from the God; those who help themselves get the help from the fellows. If the Hongkongers don’t want to be sold like pigs, do you duty and take up your responsibility. You will get the help from the God and your fellows.
The only positive effect of the signature of the British on the Outcome Document is to wake up the dream for those who imagine that the British will return. It’s time to wake up from your dream and prepare for the fight.

[P. S. Upon completing this article, it was reported by Times of London that Li Keqiang will be received by the Queen. So what the glorious Kingdom looks like today.]

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

Wing: Opportunists: "Awesome Taiwan moves, awful Hongkong dudes"

Opportunists: "Awesome Taiwan moves, awful Hongkong dudes"
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Title by Mayi Mason, Edited by Vivian L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-17-2014/16413 
(Photo: Sherman Wong @ VJMedia)

Young faces holding sunflowers, uncles and aunts giving out resources and materials to backup demonstrators, banners with charismatic slogans hanging up in the air. The protest campaign over a controversial China trade deal (CSSTA) that developed into an “Occupy Legislature” movement was also called "The Sunflower Movement", where sunflower symbolises passion and vitality. Quite a number of Hong Kong politicians and famous radio hosts travelled to Taipei to showed their support. We know because they posted selfies on Facebook. Our ‘leaders’ seemed to think Taiwanese student movement symbolised youth and romance, their protests must be peaceful and rational.

Behind each and every sunflower, there are something that these opportunists dare not say. Things like, students broke the glass doorremoved and trampled the plaque of the Legislative Yuan right after they entered the government building. Is such criminal vandalism considered non-violent, "peaceful” or “rational"?

On 13 June, Hongkongers used bamboo sticks to pry open the door in our LegCo. These opportunists shook their heads and cried, "These are violence. They will scare off the public." Yet, when Taiwanese protesters broke down doors, they immediately rushed over there to "gain experience". They did not seem a bit "scared off" by the Taiwanese "thugs". Now people say they have double standards, they say, Taiwanese protesters did not wear masks to cover their faces. But when you google “Sunflower Students’ Protest” (or 太陽花學運), an image search will bring you photos of demonstrators wearing masks right on the first page.

If you show them these photo, they will say the type of masks are different; Legislative Yuan and LegCo are different; or Taiwan police and HK police forces are different.... You can name as many differences as you wish, but why are you determining an action being violent by the criterion of showing the faces or not? According to such logic, a robbery carried out with masks is a robbery, but it is not if the robber wears no masks? It is up to those opportunists to decide upon whether they are violent or not.

The delineation between violent and non-violent confrontation is not clearly set out, and will not be set out by these bounders. Why? Because if they do not set it out clearly, they can comment whatever they want. According to her, HK protesters are violent, HKers are then thugs; and even Taiwan protesters broke the door, they are peaceful and rational. Taiwan and HK protesters both stormed the legislature, but opportunists give Taiwan protesters a leg up, but a big slap in the face for HKers.

Besides radio hosts, some politicians, activists, columnists love to stand on "moral high grounds" to be back-seat drivers when Hongkongers are paying real efforts to fight against the government, and point their fingers at those "violent protesters", saying that confrontation should be "nice, peaceful and rational".

[Translator's opinion: Communist tyrant Mao once said, "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."]

Compared to ignorant housewives who often said "these radical people only know how to bark around", these "nicer people" are actually more sinful. They know the government is suppressing the public with their own authority, yet they still make use of their influence to make people think those who protest are "thugs". Such behaviour is no different to kicking the demonstrators when they are down.

To those "nice people" out there, please make it clear who you should be helping. Taiwanese people do not need you to take selfies there, and stop kicking others when they are down. SAR government will play its role in "condemning" such "thugs", they do not need you to speak for them either.

Monday, 16 June 2014

Wave Shum: What's the point of accepting defeat without a fight?

What's the point of accepting defeat without a fight?
Translated by Vivian L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 波浪滲 (Wave Shum)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-14-2014/16342



Some Hongkongers have a tendency of saying there is nothing left in our city to fight for, there's no use however hard you fight. But when you ask, "So what should we do?" They solemnly uphold inaction and declare "We hate politics", or go like "Hong Kong is doomed and we are moving abroad." But the problem is, not only do they firmly hold that there's nothing to be done, but they would do whatever in their power to stop anyone from trying. They sneer at you from the sidelines and say whatever you do is like "pissing in the wind"; no matter what the results, you are "too violent"; and whoever is involved are "thugs". And they pride themselves on their indifference in all these. They are the wisest of all.

So what exactly is this kind of thinking? Doomsayers like them expect failure before even fighting back. They think Hongkongers are bound for failure. Who would admit defeat without even one fight? Who would surrender before a battle? Losers do.

When you talk about fighting the commies, they go, "What makes you think you can fight with China?"

When you talk about campaigning, they go, "What makes you think protesting is useful?"

OK, now you rally support on Facebook, and there they are again, "Seriously, what else can you 'keyboard fighters' do besides updating Facebook?"

What they don't know is oftentimes tyrannical laws and policies are held off or even canceled because of people who dare to fight. From Article 23 that blatantly tramples freedom of speech to the recent Northeastern New Territories development plan that uproots homes of thousands, if it hadn't been the people who fight back, these would all have been passed.

If you don't try, you are never going to succeed.

Trying to fight for something you believe in is always better than sitting there waiting for miracle to happen.

A helpful person is one who steers you in the right direction when you've gone off track; it is one who discusses campaign strategies with you and finds ways to succeed when you fail; a helpful person is not one who admit in defeat, "Hong Kong is set for demise. Nothing can be done while we wait to be digested by China." This kind of people is literally waiting to die, politically speaking. Even if you have come to their rescue, they would just pull you into their grave.

Many Hongkongers have a tendency to do just that. Some people think they themselves are nothing; they even think our Hong Kong is nothing. They are pessimistic about everything, yet they will not do anything to change. I call them "Kong-null": they think of nothing, do nothing, and end up with nothing. They are bound for an eternal state of limbo: a place of nothingness; nothing can change, no one can leave.

Tang: What Is Beijing So Afraid of?

What Is Beijing So Afraid of?
Translated by Vivian L. and Karen L., Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by 無妄齋 (Edward Tang)



Looking back when Hong Kong is still a British colony: the time around 1982-84 is the watershed in the developmental history of the post-war Hong Kong under the Queen's rule. Prior to 1982, colonial rule saw an unprecedented success in carving Hong Kong into a prosperous metropolis. Yet from policy making to the running of government, Hongkongers' involvement had been minimal, if not none at all. The colonial government had had little to say on the ways people live or do business, and government intervention was next to nothing. Without doubt, the long-standing policy of positive non-interventionism had brought us prosperity and stability, but it also planted the seed of capitalist greed, that paved the way to ever widening income gap that plagues the city to this day. In terms of politics, majority of Hong Kong people were apathetic. Public education under British rule was such that people were discouraged from discussing in political issues. Matters were dealt only by the colonial administration but never taken directly to the Queen in the continent.


Hong Kong: from highly capitalist to highly political

Things changed after 1984. The Sino-British joint declaration had been signed. The transfer of sovereignty to China was a done deal. Some Hongkongers were more optimistic about the future following the handover. They placed their hopes on constitutional reform and the drafting of the Basic Law. While some voiced their opinions to the Chinese government through the Xinhua News Agency's local branch, the Drafting Committee, Consultative Committee for the Basic Law, some formed pressure groups and started political parties, ran for legislature, pursued social activism, initiated discussion on Hong Kong's future in public discourse, these all helped created political momentum in the local population. Meanwhile, as the British gradually relinquished power over the territory to prepare for the ultimate departure, a new power was consolidating its political prowess. On the economic side, the colony continued to thrive by the looks of things, but capitalists who were wheeling the city's economy had other plans in their minds.

In the face of unpredictable changes, many Hongkongers felt powerless.  And this is not hard to fathom. There was no way the British would give up the enormous China market for the sake of a tiny Pearl of the Orient, so it was a time to plan an elegant exit rather than help Hong Kong resist the Communists. On the other hand, China was eager to reclaim its long lost land.

But for the whole period of turmoil, Hongkongers had been shut out of the negotiation table of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Even after the negotiations, the public was not consulted before it was passed. In other words, for the ordinary people of Hong Kong, it was merely a change of flags from the Union Jack to China’s red banner. The question of whether China would honour its pledge to maintain Hong Kong people’s way of life for the next 50 years remained uncertain, for we were not in command in our own affairs.

What awaited was a succession of changes. There were talks of constitutional reform and the Basic Law, and the establishment of committee after committee such as the Drafting and Consultation Committees, the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group and the Sino-British Land Commission. Hong Kong had gone from a money-making metropolis to a city of heated politics.

Many who had led a life free from politics were now baffled by the whole new state of affairs. A number of concerns were rife among Hongkongers: Will the pledge of one country two systems, high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong be realized? Can the Chinese Communist Party be trusted? What would sent Hong Kong into a state of upheaval? The string of questions pointed to one origin: the people of Hong Kong were unsure of their new ruler. The doubt cast then persists even to this day.

The last governor of colonial Hong Kong (source)

Beijing's roadmap towards universal suffrage fixed long ago

While the powerlessness that haunt Hongkongers lingers on, the consultation on electoral reforms is now on full whack, but the public has yet to reach a consensus on the system of universal suffrage. Amid fierce debate among Hongkongers over the issue, the Chinese State Council Information Office published a white paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" on June 10, appearing to be echoing Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor in her remark about public nomination three months ago, when the Chief Secretary sided with Peking University law professor Rao Geping in ruling out public nomination, saying Rao’s comment on the city's electoral reform “set a definitive tone”. Adding even more uncertainty to the upcoming electronic referendum to select a universal suffrage proposal on June 22.

As a white paper is an authoritative document that serves as a prelude to presenting major policies, it is safe to assume that Beijing has fixed upon a narrative on Hong Kong's roadmap towards universal suffrage for long. And its plan will presumably be highly exclusive. The two rounds of consultation merely act as smoke screen of delaying tactics.

The white paper extends over some 10,000 words, but there is little new all the same. It repeatedly stresses how Hong Kong is "indebted" to China, and that Beijing is in command of Hong Kong’s political future with legal and practical grounds. Albeit lacking in novelty, there are two points worth noting.

Powers to supervise new laws, declare state of emergency, make new authorization

First, in principle, the content of the white paper is not in violation of the Basic Law. It also shows Beijing’s consistent stance on Hong Kong. In particular, the section “The central leadership directly exercises jurisdiction over the HKSAR in accordance with the law” contains elements that are seldom covered. Now let us take a closer look at some key parts (to reveal) other implication beyond the obvious.
The NPC Standing Committee has … 
“… the power of supervision over the laws formulated by the legislative organs of the HKSAR” (verse 17);
On the surface it means every new law or amendment passed by Hong Kong’s legislature shall be “put on record” at the NPC, granting the NPC actual power of supervision in Hong Kong’s lawmaking. But on closer look, this power is not comprehensive but a limited one (link). In practice, only when the body of the law either involves matter handled by the central government or Hong Kong-mainland relations does the NPC has powers to oversee the legislation, remit any new law that contravenes the national constitution to the SAR government and declare it unconstitutional. The way the white paper addresses its power “to supervise” and to demand “record” is clearly misleading.
“… the power of decision on the HKSAR entering a state of emergency” (verse 18);
This refers to in the event of rebellion threatening social security that has advanced beyond the government’s control, the NPC has the authority to declare Hong Kong to be in a state of emergency, and in turn effect an order to enforce the national law on national defense as detailed in Annex 3.  According to the Law of the People's Republic of China on Garrisoning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Chief Executive may ask the central government for assistance from the Hong Kong PLA Garrison in the “maintenance of public order”, and the power of command shall rest with the CE or the PLA officer authorized by him. One cannot help but be reminded of the CE race 2 years ago when then contending CE Leung Chun-ying was rumoured to have said in an Executive Council meeting shortly after the July 1 protest in 2003 that he intended to crack down protesters with riot police and tear gas [report by Badcanto]. Should a riot broke out in Hong Kong, the idea that someone could order an crackdown by riot police and the Chinese army by a mere command is enough to make anyone panic.
“… the power of making new authorization for the HKSAR” (verse 2[sic])
This indicates that the high degree of autonomy, including executive, legislation and jurisdiction powers, as prescribed by the Basic Law that Hong Kong enjoys today is subject to the authorization of the central government. Judging from the political reality at present, it is highly unlikely Beijing would insist on exercising its jurisdiction to redefine the scope of Hong Kong’s autonomy, thus risking constitutional crisis, but a statement like this means that the so-called “high degree of autonomy” is far from indestructible. On that account, such can be viewed as an act to intimidate. Much similar to how chairman of the NPC Law Committee Qiao Xiaoyang said last year that the Beijing will not appoint a CE who go against China.

Reading between the lines, it is clear that the white paper is gearing towards public nomination and the referendum, while the subsequent Occupy Central movement is seen as a gesture of defying the Communist rule. In the eyes of China’s top officials, past citizens’ movement on the mass scale have encouraged the idea that showcasing the power of the people can force Beijing to answer people’s wishes. Therefore, it now has to reiterate “historic facts” and “legal grounds” to guide public discourse. It starts off with the “power to supervise over lawmaking” to illustrate that any proposal of universal suffrage that goes against the Beijing’s interests, albeit backed by a popular vote, will be rejected without second thought. Then with another round of literary and political attack, Beijing once again warns the opposition camp must not provoke the bottom line of CCP through means like civil disobedience, as the final call is made by the CCP.

Sign reads: Carry Forward Revolutionary Traditions, Promote Communist Ideologies

“Love China, Love HK” resurfaces

Ever since Qiao put forward the criteria that the CE candidates must be patriots who “love China and love Hong Kong”. Politicians and scholars alike rushed to decipher his true meaning. Pan-democrats also protest against the requirement that the CE “must not be confrontational towards the central government” fearing Beijing has closed the door on them. Even the patriotism criterion “love China and love Hong Kong” is not written on the Basic Law, nor on the decisions or any legal documents of the NPC, people readily conceive the concept, which is neither legal nor realistic, only to be baffled by its political and legal implications. Now the white paper has formally adopted these words of patriotic declaration as part of a guiding document despite the fact that the no formal definition has been given about concept itself. With reference to Article 43 of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive is responsible to the central government and the HKSAR government, none of which include being patriotic in any way.

To further elaborate the criteria in addition to what’s written in the law, Qiao defined the candidates for CE were “not to take part in activities such as attempting to overthrow the Chinese government or undermine the mainland's socialist system”, whereas Rao Geping asserted CE hopefuls must “uphold the Basic Law and China’s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong… and that in recognizing China’s sovereignty and its jurisdiction over Hong Kong, one would be obligated to love the country, and safeguard national interests, and ensure the implementation of ‘one country, two systems’ and the Basic Law.”

These restrictions show how fearful the Communist Party is of party politics taking roots in Hong Kong. It was feared that those in the opposition camp who gather year after year demanding the vindication of Tian'anmen Massacre, and the end to the rule of the Chinese Communist Party would rise to the ruling class if Hong Kong is to realize real party politics, Hong Kong would then turn into a centre of subversion against Communist rule. Outside forces would be introduced to weaken and challenge the very root of China’s governance and ideologies, political systems and constitution. Even the most dreaded idea of independence would mushroom to split the country.

In reality, Beijing’s fears, each arising from failing to extend the country’s stability maintenance machine into the territory, have yet to happen. Anyone who speak up for the sake of the country’s fundamental interests and Hong Kong’s long-term interest on the whole cannot escape the faith of being labelled trouble-making rebels. One of the vices of Chinese societies is that the ruling class and those who enjoy vested interests would often turn a deaf ear to criticisms towards themselves regardless of their substance and intent. Worse still, those who raise voice would be denounced as trouble seekers. In today’s Hong Kong, people who have no principles litter the place, whereas people who stands up for one’s beliefs are hard to come by.
Meanwhile in Britain, the opposition camp prides itself as “Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition”. Being a patriot should never be confused with being a parrot to who submit oneself to authority.

A poster calling on Chief Executive, CY Leung to step down (source)

“Patriotism” not a gauge of leadership

Consider an example: if you are to seek advice from someone, but you screen every candidate with of the gauge of being a Marxist, then the people you can consult with would be limited to those who advocate Marxism. Fortunately, Hong Kong prior to the handover operates on meritocracy, as former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping famously said, “White cat, black cat, what does it matter as long as it catches mice?” No one would judge you based on your family’s wealth or lineage, but on professional merits. No one cares if you are patriotic, but if you are up for the job. Puppets who answer blindly to political leaders are always abound, but those who truly know the right thing to do are a rare sort. Puppets who answer blindly to Beijing are always abound, but true leaders who know what’s right for Hong Kong are a rare sort. They have their own vision and values of leading the city independent of outside influences. They will not be contend with being Beijing’s puppets.

This brings us back to the dilemma of Chinese politics: an authoritarian regime breeds flunkies who know nothing but to make their master happy. An exact opposite of meritocracy, powers are not rewarded based on excellence nor popular consent. For instance, a Chinese political leader is much like a rich man with a lot of children. Imagine one day he decided to give all his wealth to the child who shows the most love and respect for him. What do you think happen next? Everyone will put on their filial piety face. Some may be genuine, some not. But you can never tell. So the father finally passes away and the one who put on the best act gets everything. Only then will the deceitful heir shows his true self. Whether it is former British administration or the top brass of state-controlled conglomerates, putting on a patriotic act and slamming rivals as not being patriotic enough becomes a rather cheap stunt.

Universal suffrage of CE: Beijing and local opinions equal

Hong Kong’s political situation exists rather a congenital conflict than a sudden mutation as CE in the current system has been selected by a small circle election and has been appointed by the central government of People's Republic of China. Beijing's marionette seems to be the system's nature while at the same time, half the members of the Legislative Council can be selected by the public. In this way, legislators will have to vote according to public will, in order to retain their posts.

Leadership failures suffered from C.H. Tung to C.Y. Leung can be traced back to the same root -- public will has been put behind the orders of Chinese Communist Party. They both uphold the executive dominance, as a result, the inaccessibility of ordinary operations in legislature and judiciary are encountered. To untie this dead knot, what possibly can Hong Kong do?

Take Chris Patten, the Lord Patten of Barnes and the last Governor of Hong Kong, as an example and you'll fully understand it. He had governed not only with Charisma and sophisticated political spin, but with his boldness confronting with Beijing's views, for the benefit of Hongkongers.

Only the government with civil identification, as anyone who has an understanding of politics might know, is able to be a strong one. Otherwise nothing significant can be done. Patten knows this principle, that is why a weak status has never calling for him. If he was to attempt the other way round, it would stand for no possibilities for his "dignified and honorable" withdrawal from Hong Kong.

In times of British Hong Kong, before the election system been introduced, such conflict were not sowed. The reason is straightforward --The Governor of Hong Kong and the Legislative Councillors are appointed directly by British Foreign and Commonwealth Office with no public involvement and intervention. Translation: To stay in office, it's all about obedience to only British.

A twist has come to the Board since 1985 when the LegCo of Hong Kong started to introduce part of the members by direct election. British recognised the old method was no longer feasible for governance, which then evolved into situation against Beijing. Even Patten was condemned by Lu Ping as a "wrongdoer who would be condemned for a thousand generations", he still got the mission completed and received praises from many regarding his effective governance of Hong Kong. 
CE meant to be the communication bridge between Hong Kong and mainland China

To be CE of today, some say it takes to choose between acting as a tame parrot of Beijing or being a much revered leader of Hong Kong. You may wonder, does it truly not leaving the criteria much freedom of manoeuvre? Well, I say, false dilemma is it. To be a successful CE, the one is capable both to observe and to act. Taking citizens' views into consideration and prescribing the existing problems some appropriate strategies should come first in his/her mind.

The striving progress of universal suffrage for 07/08 and now for 17/20 -- Aiming to select CE in 2017 and to form the LegCo in 2020 by direct election has shown Hongkongers’ eagerness pushig forward the democractic development after the handover of Hong Kong. Through years of effort and pains, opposite voices are still there claiming that Hongkongers should patiently wait for a "progressive democracy" as a result of the unawareness of Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR and CE reporting conservative and filtered opinions to the central government would gradually become a resistance force of universal suffrage.

The CE has a vital role being a connection between Hong Kong and mainland China, which he/ she on one hand assists decisions making of the central government, on the otherIllegally speaking, "One Country" might go first rather than "Two Systems", but when it comes to practical governance, it's upside down. Thus a CE should follow shift a balance between the two.

In politics, Hongkongers have been longing for democracy, which purpose not to opposing the central government in the first place. On livelihood issues, Hongkongers desire the ruler to weigh options carefully taking into account citizens' feelings instead of just follow those awkward data from quantitative analysis. Combined with timely reflections and corrections followed by huge mistakes, it is a promising and responsible government.
d
The sign reads: The things in the world - If I give out alms, then it's yours; if I don't, you can't asked for it. (Source)

What is Beijing’s fear?

The cause of concerns raised by leaders of Chinese Communist Party is the distrust of Hongkongers. They don't seem to understand Hongkongers’ unwillingness to turn their home into a chaos, which reveals in each and every large-scale demonstration. You'll always find Hongkongers remain peaceful behaviours in rallies unlike citizens in other districts or countries who might probably bring serious sanguinary conflicts, even with a smaller number of protesters than Hong Kong.

Hongkongers act sensibly and rationally, no matter striving for which election. They have realised the existing system is suppressing the function of political parties.

Legislatures of many advanced countries in the West are constituted through full democracy. So far they have been carrying out effective governance. It is supposed to be a normal question to ask why couldn't Beijing allow it in Hong Kong? What is wrong with the world’s trend? What is Beijing so afraid of?

Hong Kong's political situation remains to be shrouded by uncertainty. It's impossible for Hong Kong to develop party alternation, but only to continue being a paper tiger government. The existence of this white paper worsens the existing problems. And by a simple estimation, universal suffrage will stay unrealised in the future. As Peter Woo's statement on the annual general meeting of the Wharf Holdings Limited mentioned, "Hong Kong is said to remain unchanged for 50 years ONLY and ONLY got 34 more years left for now. You all better behave yourself."