Monday, 28 July 2014

Wing Wing: The Japanese Toilet and the Chinese Crap

The Japanese Toilet and the Chinese Crap
Translated by Vivian L., Edited by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-26-2014/18058 


I am told that an article by the name "Beijing University Student Embarrasses Japanese Reporter" has been a hit on the web since it came out a few years ago. [Translator note: The article, originally written in simplified Chinese, began to spread as early as 2010 among blogs and social media in mainland China. It is presumably an interview between a Japanese reporter and a female Peking University student. The article comes with a subtitle that reads, "Without the use of a single swear word, the heroine snubs the Japs, winning applause of all".] But I only saw it today on Facebook. Though it could very well be a fabricated story, still, there's something in it that's worth talking about. Amount of truth aside, the fact that the article has been so popular in the Chinese blogosphere may actually shred some light on the Chinese frame of mind.

What catches my attention the most is this particular dialogue: On the question of boycotting Japanese goods, the reporter asks the 'heroine' whether she has ever used a product made in Japan. She replies, "Yes, a toilet." On the sound of "toilet", her fellow students burst into laughter.

I can't help but wonder what is so funny about Japanese toilets. It is just hard to fathom why fully grown and well educated persons would find the mention of bodily functions of pee and poo funny. I would suppose, "Ooh, you pooped! HAHAHAHA!!!" is something I expect to hear from an innocent preschooler or a babbling toddler, even. But university students? Seriously?

Funnier still, if, for the sake of argument, the Japanese reporter retorted, "Oh right, of course. Our toilets don't explode." One thing for sure, the "heroine" would have succeeded in making an exhibition of herself.

A Japanese bidet-style toilet
(source: Tzuhsun Hsu via Flickr)

But my friend Joe Gei disagrees, "Nah, sarcasm isn't a Japanese virtue. A real Japanese person would probably say, 'Domo arigato gozaimasu, dear madam, for your kind patronage to our craftsmanship!'" That's right, this might just add to the Chinese's humiliation.

The Beijing student might have assumed that making toilets is a disgraceful business and that using a toilet made in Japan would automatically bring shame and ridicule to the nation of Japan. But is it shame that is on the Japanese people's mind? It's perhaps anything but shame. The Japanese probably consider it a national pride that their exquisite technology has perfected toilet experiences of customers overseas. The business of making and selling toilets is probably something the Japanese are proud of. And they are rightly so. The Japanese toilet has now won over a wide fan base across the globe because of its superior quality.  But the Chinese mistake that being a customer of the Japanese-made toilet would humiliate its maker. They fail to realise that in doing so, the only people humiliated are themselves.

Back to the article. There is an idea carried throughout the piece"Japanese runts are despicable":

The Japs don't face up to history. The Japs claim they own Diaoyu Islands? To hell with their crap! The islands have been a part of Chinese territory "since ancient times"

Watching the Chinese argue indignantly without any grounds is quite a spectacle. So China, go show the Japanese who's boss. Go to war with Japan! Economic sanctions at the very least!

Canon: Capturing every boycott Japan moment

But the Chinese way of intimidation is quite an unfortunate irony in itself. Pictured above is a Chinese anti-Japan protester carrying a Canona Japanese brandcamera around his neck. And earlier this year, the Japanese embassy in Shanghai issued a record high number of visas to Chinese nationals wishing to visit Japan. The latest statistics reveals that Japan has emerged as the most desired destination for Chinese tourists. There has even been an incident when a mob of Chinese holidaymakers became so busy stocking up Japanese brand rice cookers at the Kansai International Airport souvenir shops that more flights back to China had to be delayed.

When Lu Xun's Ah Q gets beaten by random strangers, he says to himself, "A son beating his father. What the world is coming to nowadays!" This is Ah Q's way of achieving "spiritual victories".

The Chinese take it to the next level. When the Chinese feel "provoked" by the Japanese, they gnash their teeth in frustration and make up this so-called "interview" to feel good about themselvesas if in a kind of psychological masturbationand delude themselves into a delirium of superiority. So the Chinese retaliate,  "What is the big deal about these Japs? They are nothing more than toilet makers. Look at me, it is I who poo on your toilet. Take that, you runts!"

More than 80 years have lapsed since Lu Xun's time, but the spirit of Ah Q lives on ever more vivaciously in the great nation of China.

Further reading:

(Note: The issues of toilets are in fact a serious matter. The World Toilet Organization (WTO) holds yearly summit to address the subject of toilet and sanitation. Members of the WTO come from 177 countries. The WTO has organized World Toilet Expo around the world in countries such as India, Singapore and South Korea.)

The World Toilet Organisation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Toilet_Organization

The World Toilet Summit 2013:
http://worldtoilet.org/media/photo-library/library-details/?paged=World%20Toilet%20Summit%202013

Wednesday, 23 July 2014

Wing Wing: One of Three Weapons of Sophistry: Freedom of Speech

One of Three Weapons of Sophistry: "Freedom of Speech"
Translated by Karen L., Edited by Vivian L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-21-2014/17967 



"I'm entitled to the freedom of speech. Why the heck should I suffer from criticism?" It is not news for freedom of speech to be used as a lame comeback over criticisms both on-line and off. It has even gone wildly the overwhelming usage of response defending oneself or whoever the speaker is. But the genuine freedom of speech stands not for protecting anyone against criticisms, but for everyone's right to express their opinions. Quite simply, criticism is a form of freedom of speech.

Take for example: A student complains to a classmate that their teacher Mr. Chan isn't up to his job description. He thinks their teacher is unable to deliver a class of reasonable clarity and coherence.

Such feelings, involving no slander nor personal attack, is qualified to be expressed legally under the principles of free speech. If Mr. Chan, in this case, overheard his students' discussion, he surely could have defended himself saying that it might just be the students' own inadequacy. Both the teacher and the student are entitled to the right to express their views as long as they don't overstep other people's boundaries. Likewise, the student may not accuse his teacher of infringing on his freedom of speech just because his teacher retorted. It would take the teacher to say something like, "One more word against me and I'll have you expelled. You have my word!" for the teacher's comment to qualify as an actual threat to the student's freedom of speech.

I have always considered the nature of free speech is as clear as day. Somehow, a noticeable amount of people have confused and distorted its nature. What struck me the most after I cleared my mind is that it has already been quoted as excuses by numerous officials and professionals from the legal sector.

Former Secretary for Justice and current Deputy Director of the Basic Law Committee Elsie Leung is an expert twister and turner of free speech when it comes to suiting herself. The Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong confuted Leung's intervention in the law when the then head of Department of Justice publicly berated a Judge's decision on a case. In defense, Leung said that she was entitled to her freedom of speech.

It makes people cannot help but think what position she was in saying these words. And there was a time, when some citizens placed an advertisement on local newspapers demanding CY Leung to step down, Executive Council member Cheung Chi-kong claimed that they have crossed the line. But then Cheung retreated to the same excuse when he publicly criticised certain officials. 

Not even Carrie Lam, the Chief Secretary for Administration, could get herself out of the blame. She also defended Cheung's "freedom of speech" when his article which aimed specifically at Scholarism was wildly rebuked. It is weird enough when ordinary people would be abusing freedom of speech for expressing legitimate views; whereas Cheung, with his prestigious title, could enjoy unlimited freedom to express extremism without the slightest consequence.

If the context shifts itself from Hong Kong to any foreign country, these same high-power officials would have been kicked out of office, naturally. But natural does not come so naturally here in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, a lot of people could not care less when those in power have their "freedom of speech" left unchecked.

What the situation now may suggest that many Hongkongers choose to ignore officials' abuse of power or that they truly have no idea, not even a single trace of what freedom of speech exactly is, which lead them all fall into some interested parties' trap, equipping themselves this pseudo-freedom-of-speech shield.  

Wednesday, 16 July 2014

EGeneral: Countdown to 2020: Hong Kong's Days Are Numbered

Countdown to 2020: Hong Kong's Days Are Numbered
Translated by Vivian L., Written by 傲將軍 (EGeneral Pride)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-14-2014/17819 



Demonstrators hold up a placard that reads
"I don't feel like working tomorrow, but 
I won't like having no tomorrow"(Source: Passion Times)

Some say that when China took back Hong Kong from the British to reclaim the territory, the deal did not include the people of Hong Kong. China did not even wait 50 years to seek full control over Hong Kong. What is China's formula for taking full control over a place? Territorial integration, genocide and cultural eradication. With HKSAR government working in collusion from the inside, the job could not be easier.

Territorial integration: 


Ever since the fraudulent Express Rail Link (XRL) project, HKSAR government has been encroaching on Hong Kong people's home and property.

The Northeast new town plan is a glorious developmental plan on the surface but a diabolical attempt to obscure Hong Kong's border with China, giving the mainlanders north of the Shenzhen River an all-access pass to the city, while at the same time making it all the more convenient for Chinese officials to make a fortune in the development.

Yet another step in the territorial integration ploy to accelerate Hong Kong's downfall is the Lok Ma Chau (LMC) Loop development plan.

In 2007, Hong Kong and Shenzhen entered into an agreement to jointly develop the LMC Loop "to the mutual benefit of both sides". But the terms of the agreement included debilitating clauses such as "all expenses incurred during the development are to be paid by HKSAR government" and an acknowledgement that "the land-right to the LMC loop belongs to Shenzhen".

To put it simply, the plan might well end up with Hong Kong paying the bills while Shenzhen enjoys the benefits. While the mainland Chinese plunder through our resources, Hongkongers have no say in the conundrum while the Chinese commies take advantage of our government and keep encroaching on our turf.

Genocide: 


The individual visit scheme let in truckload of filthy, rude and loud Chinese tourists. Locals have to take refuge in their shoebox apartments at weekends and on holidays just to stay away from the mainlanders.

Policies like single-entry permits, granting of citizenship to "doubly non-permanent resident children" (whose parents are both non-permanent residents of Hong Kong) force us to share our precious resources—healthcare, education and social welfare—with mainlanders. When locals have to give way to plundering non-locals, it is only reasonable that the number of people emigrating is on the rise in recent years.

Hongkongers are leaving the city if circumstances permit. Those who are under less fortunate circumstances are stuck here with the biased media shoving pointless crap like "We are all Chinese" down their throats.

Cultural eradication:


From the education system to the linguistic choices made by the government and the media, the Cantonese language is being marginalised everywhere in favour of a PRC-style "Chinese". And the Hong Kong government only added fuel to the fire that is burning our language to death.

A policy was introduced to encourage using Putonghua in teaching Chinese literacy; officials have increasingly adopted China's communistic lingo and simplified Chinese characters. What our government is doing—destroy cultural relics, control people's thoughts—is no difference to an enactment of the world of Orwell's 1984.

Fairness of processes in law-making, justice, freedom and rule of law used to be the pride and dignity of Hong Kong. But with the LegCo becoming a one-man show, the police selectively applying the law to repress against protesters, and leniency being given to "nationalists", the governing morals and social orders established by generations of Hongkongers before us are practically torn to pieces.

A popular saying on the internet goes, "Once upon a time, we lived in Hong Kong; now, we live in a place called 'Hong Kong'." A while ago, some Chinese media have reported that plans are afoot that Hong Kong and Shenzhen will be merged into a mega-city by 2020. With territorial integration, genocide and cultural eradication well under way, perhaps, this place called Hong Kong will soon become history.

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Chip Tsao: Be Superior

Be Superior
Translated by Karen L., Written by 陶傑 (Chip Tsao)
Original: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=696084733797386&set=a.533448593394335.1073741825.272574169481780&type=1&theater

                                   
                                                                         (Source: Apple Daily)

Having been through this year’s 1 July protest, the central government might have missed Donald Tsang, as the CE of Hong Kong the most.

Tracing back the record, in Tsang's 7-year term, every year's 1 July protest, there were often at most 100,000 to 200,000 participants. Once a harmonious city Hong Kong was, full of the "love China, love Hong Kong" spirit.

Yet the time before that and after that, the talent in Tung Chee-hwa and his referee, CY Leung to lash citizens' anger into the demonstration of more than half of a million demonstrators has been troublesome. (despite the white paper's publication did help to add fuel to the fury.)

Like a urine test for every other routine body test, you’ll have to take a sample in the loo using a transparent "xiaoping" (note 1). (Let me be clear that I have no intention of conveying innuendos of China's Deng Xiaoping, just in case for those who cares, like someones who have a compulsive addiction to expose others' "ulterior" motives). For HKSAR's body check, this literally long leak of 17 years, the sample from the middle of the urination is the most reliable part.

Even so, reliable Tsang is now under China's judicial persecution. Just by a little push - some simple arrangements of dinners, he has been labelled as "Greedy Tsang" and is going to face the Central government's judgement by any time. With the cooperation of the three – legislature, executive, and judiciary, the central government has commanded its political terror on Tsang, not slightly take into the consideration of his contribution.

For this 510,000-participant rally, instead of making a scene in front of the world, China seemed to know how the play the card right and claimed the rally the one as "the throng of Hong Kong people declared their superior positions to mainland China."

Among these demonstrators, I do wonder if superiority is their reasons in order to act, however, it's the truth that human never settle in equal qualities, and to distinguish one and other, it takes ranking to get it done.

If we are to talk about the matter of classes in the society, China itself is definitely included as one of the subjects.

In China, it is known that communists are superior to the ordinary people, and the second generation of the rich and the government officials who could afford the French Louis Vuitton as their long-term companion are condescending than the poor who could only live with made-in-China products.

In Hong Kong, signs of application of this Chinese-style common sense is rather obvious. Those are sent to UK boarding schools for studying remains a higher social position than those receiving "national education" in local schools.

Among the countries, when it’s compared with those rowdy Asian aliens, it's a must for French and Japanese to rank above them.

As if what Huang Yong-yu, the Chinese artist, once said about the superiority in one who don't randomly spit everywhere like Chinese peasants, who has the bravery pursuing freedom is a cut above those who dares not and rather lives on in degeneration.

Bear in mind that there has not been "equality" since the beginning of the world and do take the high road to be an elite rather than anybody, or even nobody.


[Translator’s note:
1“Xiaping”, meaning “little bottle”, is of the Pinyin, the official phonetic system for transcribing the Mandarin pronunciations as Latin alphabet.]

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

PassionTimes: DAB's Ben Chan Says No to Tightening of Animal Breeders Regulations

DAB's Ben Chan Says No to Tightening of Animal Breeders Regulations
Translated by Vivian L., Written by 熱血編輯部 (PassionTimes Editiorial Team)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-09-2014/17628 

Pro-Beijing legislator Ben Chan Han-pan speaking at a LegCo meeting (Source: PassionTimes)


The LegCo Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene held a meeting on Tuesday (July 8) to discuss amendments to the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) Regulations to better regulate pet trading.

Pan-democratic lawmakers generally agreed to strengthen regulations to better protect animals from inhumane breeding processes.

But New Territories West legislator Ben Chan Han-pan of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) thinks otherwise.

Speaking against tightening of pet animal trader regulations, Chan said, "If we tighten the regulations [to make it impossibly hard to breed and sell pets], the grassroots and the underprivileged who really want a pet for companionship may be deterred from doing so because the cost may be too high. They may not be able to afford a pet because of the cost of buying a pet animal would be so high. I am extremely worried that this might happen [if the amendments are passed]."

I for one am extremely worried about Mr Chan's ability to reason. Who says pets have to be purchased?

The Honourable legislator did not know there is an alternative way to obtain pet animals besides visiting the pet store--adoption--and it's free!

It's an open secret that there are many bad breeders in operation. To breed as many saleable pups as possible, bad breeders gives no rest for the mothers; to raise the quality of the puppy products, weaker newborns are discarded like garbage.

To minimise animals' suffering in the breeding industry, an effective solution is to encourage adoption instead of purchasing, which is one of the demands of this year's July 1 march, and ironically is something that our pro-government legislators couldn't care less about.

The fact that Chan opposed to pushing tougher laws on animal breeding clearly demonstrates his ignorance on animal welfare matters.

Hong Kong needs no more crappy lawmakers like him.

Passiontimes: Christians Have Spoken: "Paul Kwong Does NOT Speak for Me!"

Christians Have Spoken: "Paul Kwong Does NOT Speak for Me!"
Translated by Vivian L., Written by 熱血編輯部 (Passion Times Editorial Team)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-08-2014/17606


Archbishop Paul Kwong's recent comment against the July 1 protesters has sparked storm of revulsion among Christians and non-believers. Some Christians have opened a Facebook page titled "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me", declaring that the opinion of the Archbishop of Hong Kong Anglican Church has nothing to do with them.

Kwong, who has always been conservative, was appointed a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (China's political advisory body) in 2013. In an interview at the time, Kwong openly opposed to using civil disobedience to achieve universal suffrage in 2017. "Universal suffrage is not a panacea," Kwong said, "but it has been idealised too much."

Many who have participated in the July 1 march only did so to get abroad the bandwagon," Kwong said in a recent sermon.some students' complaint of "having no food and water for hours" and "long queues for the bathroom", Kwong mocked the young protesters and said, "Why don't bring along your maids next time?" Kwong told Christians to ask themselves "What Would Jesus Do", but his version of Jesus was a "gentle and humble" man who uttered not a word when He was brought before Pilate, like a lamb waiting to be slaughtered.

Kwong's comment stirred up resentment among the Christian community after it was widely reported by local medias. Passion Times' author Do Chan condemned Kwong as a false prophet.

A Facebook page "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me" was opened this morning, listing out Kwong's past controversies, one example being his comment "universal suffrage is not a cure-all".

[Translator note: As of writing, the page has recorded over 1000 Likes.]

Link to "I am a Christian, but Paul Kwong does NOT speak for me" page:
https://www.facebook.com/pKwongnotme

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

Do Chan: Paul Kwong - a Living Example of a False Prophet

Paul Kwong - a Living Example of a False Prophet
Translated by Vivian L., Written by 陳到 (Do Chan)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-08-2014/17597

Archbishop Paul Kwong of Hong Kong Anglican Church (aka Sheng Kung Hui) gave a sermon at St. Paul's Church on 6th July, which was also a Confirmation celebration and theological education Sunday.

In honour of the tradition where the bishop blesses the baptised to follow the example of Jesus Christ in the Confirmation celebration, Kwong mentioned more than once that Christians should always ask themselves, "What Would Jesus Do?" (WWJD). But on what Jesus would do in the face of Hong Kong's current political climate, he took a firm stand, "I do not believe Jesus would have thrown objects in LegCo, nor would He have berated the government officials, nor would He have used irrational and violent means to express Himself."

Kwong continued to claim that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels was very "consistent": Jesus was "gentle and humbled" when He was condemned before Pilate, silent like a lamb waiting to be slaughtered. Those who came out to protest had "no peace within, nor do they have the wisdom to think straight," Kwong argued, "that's why you see so much irrational responses, some are even worried that they will no longer be allowed to protest next year." The greatest bullsh*t of all was when he taunted those arrested after July 1 overnight sit-in to "bring along their maids". The way I would like to respond to his sermon is that the Archbishop just demonstrated how to be a false prophet.

False prophets preach "the other gospels"

Kwong said Christians should always ask themselves what Jesus would do, but he himself has little knowledge of the Jesus as the Bible records. "Jesus Cleanses of the Temple" is a story well-known even to non-believers. And what He did was in no way close to being "gentle"; Has Jesus ever berated anyone? The Bible has records of Jesus looking at those who were spying on Him in anger, Jesus rebuking His disciples, and Jesus publicly berating the Pharisees and Sadducees as "brood of vipers". Jesus would be the last person to be gentle when injustice is before Him. Kwong's depiction of Jesus as a man of little words is a shameless distortion of the Lord's image into one that fits his own pro-government leaning. Such a person is no man of God. Kwong must confess his sins and repent, otherwise may he never ascend into Heaven no matter how tall his bishop's mitre is.

False prophets heralds "false peace"

First let's take a look at passage in scripture (Ezekiel 13:8-16):
"Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: ... My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. ... Because they lead my people astray, saying, 'Peace,' when there is no peace, ... The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace,  declares the Sovereign LORD."

The scripture passage mentions those false prophets who misled others by saying, "Peace," when there was no peace. Kwong's sermon was a perfect example of false prophecy. He spoke of how Hong Kong is beset by a host of problems, but what he did was teach his parishioners to have peace, and slander the protesters as having no peace within. This is not and never will be the teaching of the Holy Scripture. The Bible does not instruct people to be ostriches that profess "spiritual victories" but are ignorant of the dangers of the outside world. The Bible has always been a book of truth. The role of a prophet is to warn people of the consequences of sins, and that people should turn away from their sins and do what pleases God. Calling upon Christians to be "gentle and humble" when facing serious issues is essentially telling Christians to keep their mouths shut and stay away from politics and from the truth. But with China trampling on all aspects of the city's life, it's only natural for Hongkongers to cry for help, and to fight back in self defence. But Kwong, on the other hand, brush people off and says, "Suck it up, it'll all end soon." A pastor like this, even one is too many for our own good.

Towards the end of his sermon, Kwong reverberated, "We as Christians should follow the example of Christ, so that people see that we are different," stressing that Christians should remain silent like the meek and gentle Jesus he had depicted.

I agree in all certainty that Christians should follow Christ's example to become like Jesus, so that people see that we are different, which is just the reason why we should follow His steps to stand up against injustice and sacrifice for the greater good.

[Translator note: Paul Kwong was appointed as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, China's political advisory body, in 2013.] 

Monday, 7 July 2014

Favabean: "New Immigrants Are Hongkongers Too?"

"New Immigrants Are Hongkongers Too?"
Translated by Jonathan Ip, Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by Fava Bean
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2013/12/19/57439 

林鴻達攝
(Photo: Jacky HT Lim)
“The new immigrants are equally Hongkongers also, why must we distinguish new immigrants and non-new immigrants for everything?” This is exactly the crux of the debate over the new immigrants’ qualification to obtain CSSA upon their 1-year arrival – the issue of Hongkongers’ ethnic identity. What matters is neither economic costs, social contribution, potential consequences nor the number of years the new immigrants have stayed here. I will try to articulate why the HK Government has the moral obligation to give priority to the interests of the “Original Hongkongers” (whose parents are Hongkongers and who are are born in HK; well, I [Fava Bean] ain't though), and why it is a supererogation, instead of a moral obligation, to offer new immigrants welfare.

1. Define “What are Hongkongers”: what we call “group” is by its definition exclusive. It does not mean to unreasonably being hostile to newcomers from outside, nor does it mean to reject the newcomers from outside to be assimilated and to be parts of that group. It means that when a newcomer who has not been assimilated yet is so fresh, most of the members of the group would realize that this newcomer does not share the common characteristics found among the members. Putting it simply, it means coteries in social relations. As to the criteria defining the membership of a group, of course it is decided by the original members. This is not populism, but manipulating this exclusive character to blindly attack newcomers is. If there is someone, in the name of morality, defines the ethnic identity for all the people without paying regard to the majority opinion, this person is crossing the line by wrongly doing the task for the rest of the group.

Supposedly immigrants should be able to blend themselves into the local community, and the reason why they find it so hard to do so is due to the absence of the approval authority in the government's hands and insufficient support for the new immigrants. Even though they have committed no wrong, you can’t force Hongkongers to accept that they are locals too just because they have done nothing wrong. Such forced acceptance will only reinforce Hongkongers’ antipathy toward the newcomers.

Welfare, by its definition, is reserved for the members of a group only. Assume that the Engineering Society is distributing welfare packs to Nursing students, neglecting the fact that quite a few members of the Society cannot get the packs, the Society is definitely going to be blamed. Groups, of course, may distribute resources for outsiders, but that is charity, not welfare.

* Although I do not support to allow the new immigrants to obtain welfare, I agree that the government should put more money in facilitating the new immigrants to blend into the local community.


The Hong Kong Government’s moral obligation toward “Original Hongkongers”: a child born in Hong Kong, indeed has never chosen to be here; his or her parents did not have a choice too, unless they had the bucks to give birth to him or her in other countries. The HK Governments actually has the moral obligation to take care of their misfortune. But a new immigrant chooses to come here by himself or herself, and the parents of an anchor baby (Editor's note: 雙非兒童) chose to give birth here in HK by themselves as well. Adults should be responsible for their own choices, and the new immigrants should have planned their lives and finance before they migrated, as it is very irresponsible to make other pay for their bad planning. Admittedly, if the new immigrants suffer from difficult livelihood, the government should, on a humanitarian basis offer assistance – the Social Welfare Department used to have the discretion to offer CSSA to new immigrants who have not been here for 7 years.

However, I must emphasise that such assistance is only based on humanitarian concern instead of any moral obligation. Legalising such supererogation and make all the Hongkongers to pay for such supererogation is undoubtedly being generous at others’ expenses.

*Therefore I support new immigrants under the age of 18 to get financial assistance unreservedly, as they did not have a choice to come to HK.

Some say that “family reunification” is a fundamental human right, but to what I have learned, the mainland government does not restrict Hongkongers from immigrating into China, so that the HK-China families can choose to reunify in Hong Kong or in mainland. As stated above, adults should be responsible for their choices, and I will not repeat again here.

But, well, according to Cosmopolitanism, the right of family reunification is outweighed by the right of survival of obtaining food and water, indeed the government should really cancel all welfare which has nothing to do with survival, and donate the saved resources to those starving people (Alright I am joking).

After all, the two most important issues are still to get back the approval authority and reinforce support to the new immigrants. As they have been explained by so many people, I would save my breath here.

Wing: Understanding "LGBT" - Chapter Gay

Understanding "LGBT" - Chapter Gay
Translated by Choi Siu-wa, Edited by Karen L., Written by Wing
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-26-2014/16902



This time it is Gay’s turn in the series of "LGBT" after the previous brief introduction about Lesbian.

In medical terms, gay and lesbian are described as homosexual. The word "gay" originally means "happy" but it is no longer used to mean "happy" in modern daily life.

It has to be traced back to the 19th century at least (or even earlier) that the word "gay" acquired a meaning connected to sex. Male and female prostitutes were called "gay" for their bright-colored and beautiful clothing in the Victorian Britain. Later, "gay boys" became the form of address of all male homosexuals.

In the United States, the word "gay" may be derived from the hobo community. A young hobo, also called "a gay cat" or "a geycat", usually had to be on friendly terms with another elder and experienced hobo to get a chance to learn and live. As sexual relationship is part of it, "gay cat" turned to the meaning of "young homosexual". The insiders of homosexuals did not start to use this form of address until the WWII.

The word "gay" has commonly been used to address male homosexual since the rise of the Gay Liberation Movement in 1970 and it is also a form of address that the insiders accept. You cannot say "he is a gay" which is a common wrong use as the word "gay" is an adjective. The right way to say should be "he is gay", meaning "he is a homosexual". However, we should be aware that "gay" and "homosexual" are the most common uses. Although it is easy to list 10 or even more words about homosexual in American spoken language, only "gay" and "homosexual" do not carry a tone of vilification, and that is the reason why the mass widely accept these two words.

Tracing it back in history, there are a great deal of records of male homosexuals in ancient Eastern and Western culture, such as the marriage of Athenian Pausanias and the tragedian Agathon in the Classical Greece period, Long Yang Jun in the Chinese Warring States period, the relationship between the Emperor Ai of Han and Dong Xian in the Chinese Han Dynasty, etc. Thus we can see that male homosexuality has existed since in ancient times.

It is not hard to discover the dark side when we are tracing events in our history. Homosexuals received rather serious persecutions during the past thousands of years, and there were still large scale persecutions even in the early modern period. During the Nazi period in Germany, homosexuality prohibition has became one of the targets in the Nazi party platform since Hitler’s rise to power. Both organisations of homosexuals and scholarly works of homosexuality and sexology has been banned since 1933. Homosexuals in the Nazi party were killed.

According to estimates, there were 1.2 million open male homosexuals in Germany in 1928. From 1933 to 1945, about 100,000 males were registered as homosexuals by the police, and around half of them were convicted. Most of them were put in normal prisons, but 5,000 to 15,000 people were estimated to be imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. There is no clear number of deaths at the current moment but Ruediger Lautman, a well-known scholar, estimates that the death rate of homosexuals imprisoned in concentration camps was up to 60%. The homosexuals in prisons were treated cruelly by the arresters and were also persecuted by the other prisoners. This awful incident of persecution was neither recorded nor narrated in history books.

After persecutions for so many years and decades of affirmative movements, the mass has already accepted the existence of male homosexuals. However, the public in Hong Kong has considerable misconceptions towards our gay friends because Hong Kong people did not try to understand and were misled by TV series. It sometimes causes them to offend the homosexuals without any notice. "A man who wears an earring in his left ear is cool but in his right ear is gay," a saying within Hong Kong's community. This saying shows the misconception the public has because there is no such saying in the homosexuals' community.

Some may say, "all the gays are sissy. That’s what the TVB series shows us!" [Translator's note: TVB is a free-to-air TV broadcasters in Hong Kong] In fact, you cannot judge whether a pair of handsome guys is gay just by watching them in the street if they are not having intimate behaviour. The others may say, "many gays are actually very cool!" But I can say that not everyone is cool, at least for my gay friends.

"How do you differentiate the male and female role in a gay relationship?" The roles in homosexual may vary and it is not a simple black-and-white matter. It is not appropriate to explain a same-sex relationship with a male-and-female mode. For example, some couples' relationship is about care-taking and care-receiving. In their jargon, it is "an elder brother" and "a younger brother" respectively. Although it is common to see this kind of mode, it is fairly flexible that sometimes they exchange their role. Besides, a considerable amount of homosexual couples opts for the "equal" mode. They do not like the difference of role but the feeling of equal. Mutual respect is important in a relationship. People should be treated equally regardless of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Of course there are still many other different misconceptions that is too much to be listed here. The only way to shift it right relies on the mass's initiative to care about the gay friends around them and to avoid being misled by TV series and magazines.

In the end, I would like to recommend you a video about how a stranger hugs a gay person, which is really touching one. By and large, homosexuals are just normal people like everybody else.

(Photo: Passion Times)

Sze Lai-shan: "What Contributions Have You Hongkongers Made?"

Sze Lai-shan: "What Contributions Have You Hongkongers Made?"
Translated by Choi Siu-wa, Written by Editorial Team of Passion Times
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-05-2014/17539



Today, the Hong Kong Politikos Quest Championship held the “Looking at Hong Kong’s Immigration Policies from the One-way Permit Scheme” forum in the University of Hong Kong (HKU). Raymond Wong Yuk-man, a member of the Legislative Council; Roy Tam, the convenor of the Population Policy Concern Group; Sze Lai-shan, a committee member of Society for Community Organisation (SoCO), and Paul Yip, a professor of Social Work and Social Administration of HKU attended the forum as guest speakers. Ms Sze, who took part in helping new immigrants to reverse the judgment of seven-year residency requirement for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) benefits, made an astonishing comment in the forum that asking Hongkongers to reflect on what contributions they have made to the society before blaming new immigrants.

Sze restated SoCO’s standpoint in the forum: fighting for the revocation of all the residency requirement for CSSA benefits and requesting the government to legislate against new immigrants discrimination. Besides, Sze responded to a member of the public that new immigrants filled most of the junior vacancies in Hong Kong when the person questioned whether new immigrants of family reunification made any contributions to the society’s economy. She claimed that most of the new immigrants are self-reliant, and SoCO has been helping them integrate into the society of Hong Kong. She further added that Hongkongers should ask themselves that what contributions they have made to the society instead, and should not always aim their spears at new immigrants. “Many people frequently question what exactly do the new immigrants do for Hong Kong. And I, would like to ask what do you Hongkongers think you’ve done for your city? And what do you mean by “contributions”? Don’t tell me that holding a degree will be counted as a contribution to the society! Fine, forget about the contributions then. Most of you said that you are not on welfare. But, what about public housing? Tell me, how many of you Hongkongers are not living in public housing estates?" she said. Her speech caused a commotion among the audience.

Mr Tam rebutted Sze’s opinion later, pointing out that many countries have financial means test for new immigrants of family reunification, and only those who are able to be self-reliant are permitted to immigrate. But it does not mean only the rich are qualified to immigrate.

(Photo: Passion Times)