Thursday, 29 January 2015

[Undergrad/HKUSU] J.Y.: HK Independence from A Military Perspective

HK Independence from a Military Perspective
Translated by HKCT Editorial Team, Written by J.Y. @ Undergrad, HKUSU (2014)
Original: http://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/09/17/85336 



Hong Kong Independence (HKI) shall always be the last resort. Not only does independence mean losing the military protection by the Chinese army, orphaning Hong Kong in the international front; it also symbolises the separation of China's sovereignty of Hong Kong--a subject of great sensitivity to China. Even if we can resolve the problem of local supplies, but practically HKI campaign is a separatist revolution. Let's not forget that we are facing an autocratic regime; and it is a no-brainer to expect violent confrontation given Beijing's conservative attitude. Putting the motive of revolution aside, how to set independence in motion is an unavoidable conundrum that proponents of HKI have to face. Historically, the [ways an means] of an independence movement boils down to one of three events:

- armed independence;
- independence fostered by "foreign forces"; and
- independence with political negotiation.

With China's Communist Party in power and hungry with ambitions who sees Hong Kong as a means of bringing benefits unto itself, it is near impossible for Hong Kong to negotiate for its independence fairly and squarely. With one way down, are the other two ways viable options for Hong Kong?

INTERNAL FORCES OF HONG KONG INDEPENDENCE

An armed independence movement aims to achieve independence and autonomy by confronting the sovereign state with armed forces. Hence, the prerequisite of an armed independence movements is a local armed force. The price of independence by blunt force is no doubt astronomical, but here we will still present the arguments for the sake of discussion.

We can study the feasibility of mobilising internal forces against external forces. A local armed force must rely on number and armaments. For army, despite having a population of seven million, it is impractical to count all of them as all social and economic activities that sustain the city will cease. For armament, as Hong Kong is not an military region, the only form of weaponry is within the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Garrison and the Police Force. Any form of navy or air force requires far greater resources, so the only possible armed independence for Hong Kong would be setting up an infantry regiment.

As to the formation of a local army, we can take reference from Singapore's National Service (NS), the compulsory enlistment system in the nation. All of the 1.9 million male Singaporean citizens not holding a foreign nationality and who have attained the military age is required by law to be enlisted for two years. Singapore is currently protected by a force of 31,800 regular servicemen, 39,800 active personnel and over 950,000 reserve personnel, which correspond to 1.8%, 2.2% and 52.7% of the male population, respectively.

With about 2,680,000 physically-fit male over the age of 18 in Hong Kong, it is possible that we can have a local army of 50,000 regular soldiers, assuming a similar conscription proportion. If Hong Kong is to adopt the Singapore military age between 16 and 24, the number rises to 66,000 regular servicemen each year. After a decade, at least 700,000 personnel would be available as reserve army. As for expenditure, military expenses of Singaporean government total around USD9.9 billion every year, taking up 3.6% of its GDP. According to the same percentage, with our GDP in 2012 at USD263.3 billion, a sum of USD9.47 billion would be needed to sustain our military force, which would make up around 18.6% of the total expenditure in the 2012-2013 fiscal year (HKD393.7 billion).

Having said that, even if proponents of HKI can mobilise local forces, military pressure from China still exists. As the ancient Chinese military treatise The Art of War posits, "Precise knowledge of self and precise knowledge of the threat leads to victory". We have a garrison of 6,000-strong PLA stationed in Hong Kong. They are responsible to Beijing for the defense of Hong Kong. With army, navy and air forces spreading around HK, the PLA will be tackling the safety issue if necessary. So when there is HKI revolution, the first obstacle will be these PLA. As Hong Kong is next to Macau, there are 1,000-strong Macau Garrison. We have to face 7,000 PLAs, which means violent and blood scenes will be unavoidable if confrontation has to take place.

And if local force could achieve temporary victory in Hong Kong and get the armament and materials of HK and Macau, HKI supporters still have to face the army across the river. There are seven military regions in China, and Hong Kong is under Guangzhou Military Region, which looks over Guangdong, Guangxi, Hunan, Hubei and Hainan. Its mission is to protect the south, and provide support to HK and Macau Garrison. When HKI revolution took place, and the Garrisons were evicted, the Guangzhou Garrison will be alert immediately. It mainly stations in Guangdong and Guangxi, with the 41st and 42nd Group Army. 41st has one division, five battalions and four regiments, 42nd has one division, nine divisions and four regiments, and there are 130,000 army in two Group Armies, with army, infantry, tank, armoured, artillery and so on.

But on the other hand, the HKI troops could only obtain limited armaments from the PLA Garrison and the Police Force, and more than 130,000 navy and air force excluding the army in Guangzhou Military Region. Facing such a large difference in armament with the strong military power across the river, Hong Kong cannot avoid being attacked. We might use "guerrilla tactics", but yet that turns the territory into a war zone, where daily lives could not be sustained anymore. The result would be equally pathetic, eventually the Chinese force will occupy Hong Kong, and HKI campaign will be completely destroyed.

EXTERNAL FORCES OF HONG KONG INDEPENDENCE

If armed independence is not an easy approach, what about seeking support from external forces? Comparing to armed independence, seeking support from external forces enables more bargaining power for the region. For Hong Kong, we have the foundation for independence, but the catalytic element and power are not mature yet. If it is possible to seek intervention from external forces, it means the HKI revolution is not alone anymore, and will become a symbol of upward spiral from a local war to an international scheme. If Hong Kong has to reach HKI, there are two streams of forces: independence forces in China and the Great Powers overseas.

The independence campaign around China includes Tibet-Independence, Xinjiang/East Turkistan-Independence [hereinafter Xinjiang], and Taiwan-Independence. Three campaigns have a long history. The first two have stronger intention to have self-determination; while the latter one is due to conflicts in ideology. Putting Taiwan-Independence aside, the maxim of ethnic policy in China is to eliminate various cultures. The Five Races Under One Union policy no longer exist, causing Tibet and Xinjiang in a rage, thus standing out and confront Beijing. Although the background of three campaigns are different, yet the goal is the same, and HKI campaign can obtain their support theoretically. When Hong Kong and the other two regions become allies, there will be two possible results:

A better one: the sparks of independence campaign spread over the south, the north and the west; China will be separated. HKI supporters will take such advantage and claim independence. When three places became independent, the alliance could turn into a confederate system, with diplomacy and containment to China. Yet in terms of territory, Tibet and Xinjiang are too far from Hong Kong, and it would be hard to support each other. Moreover, the flow of information might be obstructed, and HKI revolution might be suppressed quickly without getting support from the two regions.

A worse one: When Beijing knows nearly 30% of its territory are separated, they might suppress these campaigns mercilessly with its own army, the result would be far less autonomy and more dictatorship.

As to the alliance between Hong Kong and Taiwan. Among the four regions, Taiwan is most mature to the step of independence. Taiwan became the territory of Kuomintang, as in the late 1940s, KMT lose lots of battles and retreated to an island with a strait in between. Although there are a lot of people supporting of "Taiwan-Independence" (TWI), but in fact, Taiwan has its own autonomy, political system, military forces, diplomacy (though limited) - it is nearly an independent political entity. The TWI supporters are just waiting for recognition in the world. The co-existence of China and Taiwan is due to the shady relationship in the politic and economic field. But if Taiwan supports Hong Kong, it is no different than declaring war to China. In recent years, the Taiwan authorities have been standing closer to China. It is not beneficial for Taiwan to support Hong Kong - at least not in Ma Ying-jeou's tenure.

While it is hard to have independence campaign with these three places, how about with other regions? For the current China, the incentive of new independence movement is still not in place, but there are still a lot of problem causing social instability. In recent years, Beijing tries to pull the reins in on the policy of southern languages/dialects, and to suppress regional culture. Few years ago, they tried to replace the broadcasting language of Guangzhou (Canton) TV with Mandarin, instead of the commonly-used language in the province, Cantonese. This caused a lot of reaction and confrontation from Cantonese people. Although the movement is limited, it shows that the conflicts between Cantonese and Beijing authorities are looming large, and it is not impossible to have a civil war. As Guangdong and Guangxi speaks Cantonese as well, and Hong Kong is adjacent to them, it might be possible to have a "Lingnan"-independence.

The south has been the revolution hotbed in the Chinese history. It is not a day-dream for Guangdong and Guangxi ["Two Guangs"] to be independent. During the Boxers' Rebellion, the revolutionaries once lobbied Li Hung-chang, the then famous diplomat and Governor of Two Guangs, for establishing a "Two Guangs" Republic. But the situation changed then, so it was put at the back burner.

Two Guangs is at the south of Qinling [Translator's note: That's why it is called Lingnan], a region with rugged terrain. Guangxi is surrounded by mountains, and Guangdong is mountainous at its north, flatland at its south, therefore not so easy to tackle with. Two Guangs were originally the country of Nanyue/Nam Yuet back in Han dynasty, and was a hotly contested area. Now Hong Kong has no geographical obstacles, nor we have food to rely upon.

If we reconsider the Two-Guangs-Independence, with its area of over 400,000 km2, it can become a barrier in protecting Hong Kong and providing supplies. If we refer to Singapore, from the estimates of 150 million residents in Two Guangs, then we can have at least 1.35 million of regular army, and with the forces in Hong Kong, then 1.4 million army in total can be gathered - that is a figure higher than half of the PLA amount. Yet lots of the population in Two Guangs are from other provinces, so it is still uncertain to tell the strength of such force.

We have two methods in applying this: bottom-up or top-down. Bottom-up one cannot really gather people, and Two Guangs include the Guangzhou Military Region, where the main force is the army. Such method will cause a prompt failure; top-down one will be a coup d'etat. In recent years, Xi Jinping combated many opposing factions in the excuse of anti-corruption, and put many of his nepots everywhere. Xu Fenlin (Guangzhou MR Chief of Staff) was quickly promoted as a commander and a general, and the political commissar Wei Liang was unconventionally promoted as a General too. Dual chief system is adopted in military regions of China, the commander controls the army, and the political commissar is the representative of the party, so as to "check and balance".

If two sides are not harmonious, there will be problems in their regions. Xu had his proven record to sit important positions, but the unconventional promotion of Wei Liang might be one of the scheme of Xi Jinping. Both Xu and Wei are pro-Xi, but Xu sowed the seed of discord as he felt nothing to fear due to his qualifications. There might be internal struggles or even riots, and Xu might gain his own troops and become a pioneer in Two-Guangs-Independece. But at the time warlords might not treat Hong Kong well and allow autonomy of Hong Kong as Two-Guangs will be in a mess. Two-Guangs-Indepedence might in turn trap the development of local autonomous campaign as the losses outweighed the gains.

Mainland China is not a source, then what about "external power"? Since 1997, there are "Return-to-Britain's-rule" supporters, who supported returning into the rule of Britain, or even become a colony again. Stepping back: if there are no "return-to-Britain's-Rule" supporters, and we only focus on autonomy - will Britain add pressure to China and help Hong Kong? The return thing has to do with the communist phobia, which is intertwined with the background as a British colony. In the last century, Britain was once called as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as she has colonies in many time zones. But now the military strength of the UK is not comparable to the past, along with economic and diplomatic plights.

In Afghanistan and Iraq War, the UK has toed the line with the US, and wants to be allies of the US. When two of the biggest economies in the world - China and India - rise, and the US wants to find new partners, then the status of UK will be faltered. So the UK will be conservative diplomatically, and it will be hard to foresee its support to HKI. Although the Sino-British Joint Declaration mentioned the delineation of rights between China and Hong Kong, the UK do not have the actual responsibility to pursue upon. A while ago the Parliament wanted to investigate on the practice of SBJD. It was but an act to allow the UK to be less embarrassing.

Will the US support us if the UK does not? We can treat Japan the same as the US given that Japan has been the cat's paw of the US in the Asian side after WWII and is still an ally of the US.  After all, Washington is eager to return to Asia-Pacific region, and Japan will be the chessboard of China and the US.

Regarding the conflict in South China Sea, the US has showed their support to Japan after their long term neutrality, and thus is said to aim at reducing China's sphere of influence. Meanwhile, Beijing has also taken a firm stance against it. Therefore it forms a constant antagonism between China and the US. Under such circumstance, the move is either to compromise or to take an unyielding stance.

Choosing the former one over the latter one means direct confrontation can be avoided. Yet it also represents the US, dodging the issues that might have caused offence to China, is not going to openly support HKI. In retrospect, the States intervened the First Taiwan Strait Crisis in a high-profiled manner; a mid-air collision between both sides' frighter aircrafts; the US bombing of the Embassy of the PRChina in Yugoslavia; all these have never triggered a war between the two countries. The tension of the two has existed for long. Now that the States has stepped into the issues of Ukraine, Iraq and their own political and economic situation, it is far too busy to ever participate in Asian matters. The political standoff against Asia may not turn to the fuse of wars.

But if the tension continues, a high possibility of wars outbreak is predicted. If such Sino-Japanese war does happen with the States engaging in, the HKI movement may arise among the chaos of wars given the instability of people's wills. To win the war, the States and Japan may help in achieving HKI, however, such independence will probably be reduced to a puppet regime. Also, the stability of a regime rising from a civil war is doubtful. Worse still, the Hong Kong stock market will be ruined overnight and all the autonomy resources and the estimation of economic cooperation will be hard to assumed.

The ideology of HKI has been originated and bred by the communism phobia sentiment in the 80s and the localism ideology since 2000s. Compared to other independence advocacy in other regions, the one in Hong Kong seems to be a political shout-out that is limited to emotional and sloganised acts. The feasibility and implementation have rarely been touched. And this is the need of existence of this article. I hope at least it can promote some further discussion on this matter.



Related content:
[Undergrad/HKUSU] Chan Ya-ming: The Scream of Our Generation
[Undergrad/HKUSU] Chan Ya-ming: The Final Generation of Hongkongers
[Undergrad/HKUSU] Keyvin Wong: Localism: Hongkongers' Only Salvation

Monday, 19 January 2015

Tofulism: Chain Store That You Might Want to Blacklist

Chain Store That You Might Want to Blacklist
Written by HKCT Editorial Team
Integrated report

(Source: Fion via PassionTimes)
Allowing mainland Chinese to jump queues and smearing neighbouring store - are these proper business practices?

Few days ago, a writer called "Sham Shui Housewife" on Grassmediaction described what happened in Tofulism Sham Shui Po branch. Kung Wo was an older tofu shop in Sham Shui Po, with fair price level and food product. Around a month ago, there is a new neighbour next to Kung Wo - Tofulism, a chain store having their branches in Tuen Mun, Tseung Kwan O, and Yuen Long.

Tofulism has adopted predatory pricing strategy, aiming at driving out Kung Wo, and so they set a much lower price, and used promoters instead of playing recordings. Yet they called customers who continue to go to Kung Wo as "country bumpkins", and implied the food quality of Kung Wo is bad.

The story hasn't ended yet - the same store, different branch has something more to tell. The Tuen Mun branch was complained by Fion, who queued for tofu puddings, but were jumped queue by a mainland Chinese. Fion told her to get to the end of the queue, but a mainland shop assistant from the shop said "You don't need to queue, I call the shot here."

Chinese links:
https://grassmediaction.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/anti_tofulism/
http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/07-30-2014/18144

Julian Yip: That's How Our Next Generation Grows

That's How Our Next Generation Grows
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Julian Yip
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/01-17-2015/20621 



In a district consultation forum back in 2013, 689 (Translator's note: nickname of CY Leung, as he only gained 689 votes) said, "If a four-or-five-year-old kid asks CY, where should he live after marrying...." The kid popped up.

In the Policy Address 2014, the kid popped up again. 689 again said, "A kindergarten kid asked, 'CE, where should I live when I am grown?'" In Polict Address 2015, there goes the kid again, "A five-year-old kid once asked me 'CE, where should I live when I am grown? Are there sufficient land in HK?'"

When kids in Hong Kong have grown to five, besides thinking about the land and housing problem, they need to learn how to "love China", according to the Our Lady's Kindergarten in Wong Tai Sin.



When the kids do not even know how to love their parents, you need to learn the concept of "nationalities are based on countries". When the kids might not know how to write their own names properly, they have to write "I am Chinese". You are what the teachers said - Concept of "Hongkongers"? Excluded.

CY Leung has supported the establishment of "HK Army Cadets Association" as an honorary sponsor. His wife, Regina Tong, will be the chief commander of the army cadets. A secondary school has issued a notice, urging Form 1 students to attend this activity. In Hong Kong, after you have understood the concept of "nationalities are based on countries" and thought about land and housing problems in Hong Kong, you now have to participate in activities of New Red Guards. Selfish adults earn piles of Renminbi by messing Hong Kong around, but they are not satisfied yet. They turn kids into victims, and ruin their childhood by sending them on the way to flatter the Communist Party.

It is already bad when these adults do not prepare a better growing environment for the kids, why are they so brazen-faced to take advantage of the kids and curry flavour to China? They are utterly not ashamed. How will our next generation grow in a world where adults can be so unprincipled, selfish and immoral?

Adults who are counting Renminbi notes will say, "The most important thing is that I can earn money."


Gnimm: United We Fail - Should HKFS Dismantle?

United We Fail - Should HKFS Dismantle?
Translated by Poppie, Written by Gnimm
Original: http://gnimmm.com/2014/12/27/badunity/ 


(Screen capture from aTV)
[Translator's note: After the Umbrella Revolution, there are different opinions towards the performance of Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS). Students from HKU has proposed HKUSU to quit HKFS (as the current FS is composed of eight students unions of 8 universities). They have called upon a referendum in school to decide whether to stay or quit. HKFS has since responded the bill by saying this will only please the Communist Party as pro-government student organisations has been established since 1989, eg Hong Kong Tertiary Student Alliance, or HKTSA.]

I am not sure if the Communist Party would be the happiest one if college student unions quit Hong Kong Federation of Students. But I do know that the pan-democrats and leftards will be the most frustrating ones if it happens. From my point of view, that is a pretty good reason to propose the issue to upset those who have been dragging the democracy development of Hong Kong for twenty to thirty years. There's no point of being together and accusing each other if different SUs are not of similar minds.

To respond to the proposal of quitting HKFS from HKU, HKFS reacted quickly to show they have always been non-profit and with not dependent on [strong] power. However, after the Umbrella Revolution, people realise the discrepancy between the truth of the organisation and its self-portrait and description. The things about being composed of all universities' student unions therefore being responsible to member; the election of university representatives and the whole structure of HKFS respects different voices are all measurements to attract people. 

HKFS knows very well that the current agenda is not easy to be moderated. So as the general direction. People are inherently lazy. Being "Greater China supporters", supporting integration of Hong Kong and China, tolerating new immigrants are all under the general line of the federation. There are very few people who will advocate for change. The existence of HKFS is very solid as long as we all think it is better than nothing. What HKFS is really afraid is that some new power can walk the walk and not to abided by rules. Then it would be abandoned and ignored completely. Not even getting any spotlight. Then, pan-democrats and leftards cannot piggyback on students.

There are always doubts on whether university reps and the consensus system is as important and running smooth as HKFS claimed it to be. The decision of accepting the government to join the debate has never been consulted within the organization. Using "pseudo-escalation", but putting protesters at risks - such acts were never agreed by the members. The relationships between HKFS and its member has been abused. HKFS claims they are the elected organisation when they need the say; they put the blame of not monitoring well on the members when the split proposal comes out. This is the same as the Democratic Party saying all their decisions have supports from the voters. Shameless.

It is without doubt that the universities have their own organisation. However, it is clear that all the organisations are small and cannot compete with FS. Even though there are Current Affairs Committees Councils, University Affairs Committees under HKUSU, all with self-autonomy and measures to speak out, it is still incomparable against HKFS. This has nothing to do with whether FS is pressuring the universities but the fact that HKFS has always been regarded as the entity that represents the eight universities. Their status is above others. FS is using this non-influential units to prove that it is unnecessary to quit FS. They are using it as an excuse for their incapability. This is simply unreasonable and unconvincing. It is pathetic for them to frame reasons in order to guarantee their status and avoid the so-called "split of power".

The image of HKFS has been ruined. Unless there is another new determined cabinet to take over, there will not be any progress in the tertiary student sector. It does not matter if the bill of HKUSU does not pass this time. What truly matters is that, the next group of people will be there to fight after making a breaking point. The initial phase of the advocacy has to be fierce and high-profiled.

Quitting FS will definitely not cause a split in the tertiary student sector. It will also never lessen the whole power of FS. It is because there will only be progress when there is competition. The die hard supporters of HKFS should regard this as a voting within a political party instead of a challenge to the authority of HKFS

The tertiary student sector is a very vague concept. It is the people, which means it is also the crowd with no opinion. Splitting into two sides and the one who is capable of being a leader will become stronger in the competition and lead the crowd at the end. The enlightenment of freshmen will be accelerated. The strength of the tertiary student sector will be consolidated. It is important to have a leader and this leader has to be trained. This is a simple fact that will not change even with the democratic systems. Split, in whatever sense, is only doing good deed. It should be done and is worth doing. The sooner the better.

Thursday, 15 January 2015

Gnimmm: Condescending "Beasteachers" and Laurel-resting Students

Condescending "Beasteachers" and Laurel-resting Students
Translated by Ciel K. and Karen L., Edited by Karen L., Written by Gnimmm
Original: http://gnimmm.com/2014/12/01/%E4%B8%80%E9%96%8B%E5%A7%8B%E8%AA%95%E4%B8%8B%E5%B7%B2%E7%B6%93%E8%92%BC%E8%80%81/ 

(Clipped from ATV)
Relating "teachers" with "beasts" is something I never wish to do, and yet most of the them in Hong Kong, even not the worst, are no more than "workers who teach", and certainly far from reaching the standard being teachers. They are ignorant enough to assume that they have already fulfilled the ultimate requirements of being a teacher: building positive values for the students and training the students to think critically. But ironically neither do they have a clear set of principle for themselves, nor do they realise the fact that schools are in fact some social organisms.

Most of the teaching staff are typically shallow-minded. Getting into the administrative sector years later does not help them get rid of the paternalistic ruling: No freedom at all times. This is the prime reason why the students in Hong Kong are becoming this well-tamed. These teaching staff restrict the students in every possible way to ensure nothing goes wrong with themselves. Added with the regular quashing on students in the name of authority, their students suffer due to the lack of life experience.

To solve the problem caused, we have to go deep into their mindset and their way handling matters. It is rather their habitual practice persuading the bad students aside and isolating them from the peer. Isn't this trick perfectly the same to those armed with power and wealth in the society? This trick serves as a defence avoiding public discussions that would place them in disadvantage.

In the school context, positions between students and teachers have never been equal. Teacher is a side of vested interests in the establishment, responsible for setting rules. Yet interestingly, people seem to forget that the legitimacy of teachers is originated from the trust of both parents and students, and that they owe a say of being a victim or not. It is the same as the police force abuse the power, people have the right to claim it back, given that it is authorised by the citizens themselves for the sake of protecting the place.

That is why it is justifiable for students to point out teachers' mistakes and to stop them from abusing the power ever again. This is not a case reconstructing "red guards" in the Cultural Revolution, but merely empowering the students themselves.

Students in secondary schools, therefore, shall be entitled to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief. They are born with such freedom discussing political issues which is not some sort of grace spared by some "honourable" principals, whereas some beasteachers constantly please their superiors and "thoughtfully" advise the students to cherish the principal's leniency. What a new definition of ridiculousness! And its tone closely resembles Zhang Xiaoming's words "The fact that you [pan-dems] are allowed to stay alive, already shows the country's inclusiveness".

Believing themselves to be infallible,  the administrative personnel, the Directors of General Affairs and the social workers choose to solve the problems within their own "system". Observing and adopting perpetually this distorted set of methods, students therefore lose their innately ability to process some formulae in dealing with problems along the way.

This also explains the reason that a number of students from the non-prestige schools only realise that they had never faced the genuine challenges when they get into the universities and that they have a hard time outperforming their peers who have been used to go against the bureaucratic management in school of serious matters. Due to the pedanticism in secondary schools, the students are isolated from the real world.

Numerous indisputable examples are there. Factually, independence on secondary school students is relatively lower than that on universities students, however, most of the schools are willing to share with the students some clear-cut rules about rights they should have. This paternalistic ruling is what makes the students' unions and house captains figureheads-only.

It has been vague towards the line of power between secondary schools and their students' unions, not to mention that students' union does not exist in each and every school. These students' unions, if not all, have not been once released statement to the outside world. All these are linked to some students' confusion between executive committees and student residents' associations, which then followed by harsh criticisms from their peers.

Students' unions in secondary schools are merely puppets without genuine influence on the school policies. It can tell by their usual duties: simply pursuing welfare and reflect opinions. Even if such unions are bold enough to raise a petition or whatsoever, all they can get is at most an expression of certain stance but not some true efforts that make changes.

On the face of it, through the permission of students' unions, the schools attempted to seem avant-garde. In these cages, student-based authorities are there generated one by one acting as a consultant organisation reflecting students' opinions to school. Yet obviously enough, being as some consultant means to have no share of the power.

A students' union with power is at bottom castles in the air, whereas the make-believe power successfully deceives the students as if the fake universal suffrage deceives quite a number of citizens. For the secondary schools, every single year, there will be some annual meetings launched by the students' union which all the students can question the members of their performance throughout the year. During the process, the students frequently overlook that the school itself is the one holding the upmost authority within a school.

As a result, the power of the school expends, to an extent that the staff do not need to think of how to convince the students of the school's decisions as they know the students have to and are to comply anyway. The teachers who blindly stick to these rules are all accomplices to students' individual growth.

Failure of recognising this serious problem in the system is due to ignorance, while the refusal of change knowing the problem is an unenlightened behaviour. And it is self-abandoned for the students thinking that they will eventually graduate six to seven years later and that it will not affect their lives afterwards whether the school has made befitting response to students' views.

How does the school rules embody? This is the question worth thinking through. When one have suited in the "whatever" way of living, one will lose the vividness of life and there is no turning back.

You should know that teenagers are the only ones who will stand through the wind. The schools and teachers in this society wish you all students abandon your fearlessness, focus solely on studies and studies and pay no attention to them, given that there is forever more a natural conflict of interest between them and you.

If those who are young in age fear troubles and punishments and turn away from the question of life and death, the world will be at a standstill till Doomsday. And I, in line with lamentation, am swollen with anger!

Sunday, 11 January 2015

Bill Chou: Patriotic Generation - Political mission for tertiary institutions in Macau

Patriotic Generation - Political mission for tertiary institution in Macau
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Bill Chou (仇國平)
Original: https://www.facebook.com/macauconcealers/photos/a.158212900914486.37247.153478958054547/766513590084411/?type=1 
[Bill Chou is the former associate professor of Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Macau]
(Photo Source: TDM)
According to the report of Macau Daily, Zhao Wei (趙偉), the Rector of University of Macau (UMac), asked teachers to be politically neutral, and fired me because I violated such regulation. Yet recently, Zhao Wei was slapped by the Tertiary Education Services Department (GAES) in the face – GAES will assess the performance of institutes of the tertiary education sector according to the standard of "Love country, love Macau". In other words, university teachers in Macau have to "uphold the banner of 'Love country, love Macau'", and cannot be "politically neutral".
GAES has issued a press release on 5th January 2015, saying that they will assess the ability of graduates according to six abilities, one of them being "Love country, love Macau". In the future, tertiary institutions will "enhance" patriotic education in terms of curriculum and co-curricular activities according to such assessment. When Chinese education authorities did not draw a clear line between the party and the country, the "patriotic standards" in Macau will have no choice but to be "par with" that in mainland China, probably including the "Seven Speak-nots" issued by the General Office of Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, that is, not allowed to mention historical mistakes made by CCP, universal values, freedom of press, citizens society, judicial independence and privileged capitalist class. In subjects like history and politics, teachers might not teach whatever they want. Politically incorrect or non-patriotic concepts might not be allowed in class.

This is absolutely not castle in the air. When I was still in UMac, I was asked by Wang Jianwei, the department head, to reduce the criticisms to public policies of China, and enhance criticisms on USA. And some students are hired by the school or department in order to supervise my speech in class. I once tried to hold a Xinjiang Policy Academic Symposium, but was halted by Wang Jianwei because of political sensitiveness. When "Love country, love Macau" became a yardstick in measuring graduates and effectiveness of universities, such intervention to academic freedom will become natural.

People always say, "Today's Macau will be tomorrow's Hong Kong". Under CCP, Hong Kong and Macau are under the same office, and the policy will be similar. Rao Geping, Basic Law Committee member and Peking University Law School professor, said Hong Kong needs "decolonised" education and students have to be instilled with "national awareness". Chen Zuo'er, president of Chinese Association on Hong Kong and Macao Studies (CAHKMS), said Secretary for Education should be under the supervision of Central Authorities. If Macau makes universities fitting in such patriotic education, it's hard to say HKSARG will not implement national education in primary, secondary and tertiary education.

======
Chinese version below, authorisation from reproduction acquired from Macau Concealors:
【愛瞞博客】澳門高等院校的政治任務: 打造愛國愛澳新一代 (一)

文:仇國平 (前澳門大學政府與行政學系副教授)

根據「澳門日報」報導,澳門大學校長趙偉說,要求教師政治中立,並因我教學政治不中立而解僱我。最近,趙偉被高等教育辦公室打嘴巴: 高教辦即將以學生的 「愛國愛澳」表現,評估高等院校的成效。換言之,日後大學教師教學要高舉愛國愛澳旗幟,絕不可以教學政治中立。

高教辦在1月5日發出新聞稿,指為了評估高等院校的成效,將會就六個學生能力範圍制訂指標,評估畢業生的黎波里能力。其中一個能力範圍,就是「愛國愛澳」。將來,當院校知道學生的愛國愛澳表現要接受當局評估,自然會在課程上以至課外活動,加強愛國教育。在現時中國的黨國一體下,澳門的愛國標準難免和內地接軌,包括有可能仿效中共中央辦公廳向大學下達的「七不講」指令,不能在課堂上講授中共的歷史錯誤、普世價值、新聞自由、公民社會、公民權利、司法獨立、權貴資產階級。歷史及政治等較具爭議的學科,教師不可隨意教授各種學說。被視為政治不正確、不愛國的觀念,可能不准向學生教授。

這絕不是危言聳聽: 當我還在澳大的時候,曾被系主任王建偉教授要求,減少對中國公共政策的批評,以及加強對美國的批評。而部份學生,被招攬為校方/ 系方監督教師在課堂上言論。另外,我曾經舉辦中國新疆政策學術研討會,被王建偉以政治敏感為由要求停辦。當「愛國愛澳」成為評估畢業生以至大學成效的指標,這些干預學術自由的舉動,便變的理所當然了。

坊間常說: 今日澳門,明日香港。港澳政策屬中共同一個政策系統,兩地政策部份互通有無。身兼基本法委員會委員的北京大學法學院教授饒戈平日前表示,香港需要推行「去殖民地化」教育,培養國家意識。前中國國務院港澳辦常務副主任、全國港澳研究會會長陳佐洱,香港教育局長要接受中央監督。倘若澳門成功在大學內推行「愛國愛澳」教育,難保港府以「去殖民地化」做幌子,在香港大中小學推行國民教育。

Thursday, 8 January 2015

Gnimm: Christina Chan, You're right.

Christina Chan, You're right.
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Gnimm (逆嘶亭)
Original: http://gnimmm.com/2015/01/08/youreright/ 


When we mention Christina Chan Hau-man, most people will think of her sidetrack gossips on entertainment magazines. Now, as the situation deteriorates, she is now well-acclaimed as if she is an aggrieved prophet. She herself has long been despondent and stayed away from politics. This is the only result of a person who steps much forward the others. She took an arrow and shoot against "Greater China morons". And now the Snow Lion Banner of Tibet has less and less exposure.

Recently a video clip was uploaded. It was Christina participating in a protest on a tree. I felt sentimental. It was four years ago at night. She was skimpy, as the media described. She was holding a mic, condemning the "go-through-the-motions" formalism of 1st July demonstration. She asked the other protesters to reflect the effectiveness of standing out on streets, and said things that were not much understood at that time. She said, "Should we keep on doing so? We have to think why we are out here. If we do not escalate our action, then staying here will be nothing but a tradition like 1st July demonstration." I can barely hold back my emotions.


Tempus fugit. A 'prophet' is bound to bear such pains. She had to withdraw, long before the Umbrella Revolution, long before people made their own shields and burnt rubbish bins. She, after all, is just a person. We felt helpless when we saw leftards calling people to "vote and deliberate" in Mong Kok [trying to be leaders in the movement], and now it seems that we can do nothing to those totem-praising, "peaceful, rational, non-violence, non-swearing" (PRNN) "yellow ribbons". It is not difficult to imagine how much Christina had to bear, especially when she was on her own. She knew she needed to grab the attention from cameras, so she did use many new tactics, making herself on headlines of newspapers. She then became the target on the bull's eye.

In a calm manner, she said the truth, "Is it useful to do the formality again, just like last year?" Four years have passed, even after the largest scale of occupation in the history of Hong Kong, the majority of Hongkongers still do not understand this truth. In the clip, her friends held the gate outside the old Government HQ, and she called for support. Yet, some fake-allies urged all protesters returning to the original position and to sit and wait until they were carried away by the police, and stop blocking the gate. She was clever and daring, and knew the way such fake-allies act. She shouted, "Never retreat and hold our bottom lines!" Yet in the movement against the development of Northeast New Territories in 2014, Raphael Wong, one of the chief fake-allies, was so brazen-faced to say "People did not think so" in front of journalists to halt the kind of charging Christina proposed. All people who think they are fighting for democracy for Hong Kong owes Christina an apology, because we allow people like Raphael Wong to get in our way when he felt excited when protesters were getting arrested.


Also, the forlorn Christina Chan promoted an idea of self-determination, an idea that is still not understood by PRNN yellow-ribbons. From 1997 to 2003, from 2003 to 2010, from 2010 to 2014, we are still thinking the meaning of civil disobedience, and tarrying with legal wordings. Hongkongers have the priority in enjoying resources of Hong Kong, the final say to our population policies, the right to have one-person-one-vote in electing the government - these are still "not accommodating and fair" to many people who think they are rational. The internal affair of Hong Kong is not yet solved, then not to mention how the Communists suppress people in Xinjiang and Tibet.



"Amid such chaotic world, we have our responsibilities .... for stability maintenance/weiwen." These PRNN yellow-ribbons brandish themselves travelling, and stuck the yellow banner with "I want genuine universal suffrage" wherever they go. But in fact, they have not cherished those pioneers who carry responsibilities at the beginning. And the way they "embrace" democracy is, but, another kind of stability maintenance/weiwen. They do not mind "doing the formality again just like last year", nor doing origami of yellow paper umbrellas for many hours. They are merely jumping on the wagon, or a kind of Joneses mentality.


She did not join the revolution, nor she exposed herself. The revolution ended, not even smelling a scintilla of gunpowder. At the time, did anyone always bear the idea in mind - that continuous escalation of movement has to be continued everyday more radically than yesterday? No. Few were struggling, but the majority of the protesters were not convinced. Some even said "Policemen are our neighbours, the government is our archenemy". Eventually people wait, and tally, for an inconclusive end, which was executed by the batons of the so-called law enforcement agency.

So, her thorough withdrawal was right. Her time belongs to her. People in this place do not worth her precious decade to "enlighten" others. She is neither Albert Ho nor Lee Cheuk-yan, she could go to somewhere else and develop herself, and for those twerps who can stay in the political sphere for two decades, you may now be crystal clear about their "true colours".

Monday, 5 January 2015

Kevin Chu: On the Role of "United Front"

On the Role of "United Front"
Translated by Karen L., Edited by Chen-t'ang, Written by Kevin Chu (建燁)
Original: http://home.macau.ctm.net/~sonpou/1212/Yip.htm 
(Translator's note: Kevin Chu is a current-affair commentator from Macau.)

As "United Front", known as "Tongzhan" in Chinese, explicitly states, it means "centralising the battle fronts". This term is originated from Vladimir Lenin's piece at the time of Soviet Union and is regarded as one of the three weapons of Chinese Communist Party (CCP)'s revolution. Viewing "uniting secondary enemies in attack of primary enemies" as the principle in political competition, CCP thinks highly of "United Front" for both inner- and outer-party issues.

CCP stands out, unquestionably, when it comes to implementations of "United Front" tactic. Expelling Chinese Nationalist Party to Taiwan back in the days is remarkably listed as one of its "achievements". Indeed, CCP succeeds in political struggles one after another conjointly through "United Front". The revelation of broken promises comes along in the meanwhile.

Before the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC), Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, both significant leaders of CCP at the time, gave people their solemn pledge of the future of democracy through Jiefang Daily and Xinhua Daily. Yet, in the end, is there any Chinese on their motherland ever embracing the warmth of democracy? Have anyone ever witnessed one direct election of the President of the PRC? With an endless harassment of the unhealthy political system, how is it possible for a country to alter its economy and livelihood from the ground up?

CCP vowed likewise to bestow ethnic minorities the right to self-determination once, however, not long after the establishment of PRC, Mao Zedong, the founder and chairman, when reviewing the national historical records, indicated that it was a move of expediency gaining their support towards the regime and that there was no need emphasising the right to self-determination anymore.

Mao also claimed that it was not necessary to have expressions such as "the establishment of CCP's regime" and "the fall of the  Kuomintang of China" in order to avoid any deprivation derived from the secession (More on P. 4-5 from the Chronicle by Mao Zedong 1949-1976: Volume I compiled by the CCCPC Party Literature Research Office). To this day, as a matter of fact, self-determination among ethnic minorities still belongs to one of the basic national policies. They see the importance to prepare ethnic minorities of their ability towards self-administration, so as to diminish the inner conflicts once the integration gets in afterwards. And it doesn't stop right here.

Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom, as media from Hong Kong, recently said that Beijing's officers have transmitted a message disqualifying Sino-British Joint Declaration. In the matter of implementation time, the countries should discuss in peace. There will only be problems left if they do not settle with a mutually agree time for implementation.

The term "United Front" from Lenin, surprisingly filled with such stream of thought that is penetrated of Chinese-spy-style. In The Art of War, it reads, "To govern the army properly, it is noted that there is no one closer than spies, deserve receiving more advantages than spies, know more secrets than spies." Likewise, in Wubei Zhi, it reads, "Spying is inevitable when it comes to verse military forces. Harm so caused is unavoidable during the process."

For the term "United Front", the ultimate purpose "uniting secondary enemies" is to employ spies. All is as what Mao said before, "Who is our enemies? Who is our allies? These are the primary problems of revolution we have to solve" (Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society (1925), Mao Zedong). Generally, the symbolic meaning of the term is rather negative, given that its definition sometimes carries the behaviour of bribery. Yet, I stand on the ground that this "United Front" tactic is eventually no more than a tactic that its nature is directly proportional to the user.

To advance insight towards "United Front", along with its historical background, it is one way to achieve ideal liberal education. On the basis of the common use of "United Front" nowadays among CCP and some other related parties, one is able to not only gain knowledge about the past, but fathom today's China from the mist.