Friday, 26 August 2016

[Undergrad/HKUSU] The Gap Between Two Hong Kongs: Seriously Looking at Hong Kong Independence

The Gap Between Two Hong Kongs: Seriously Looking at Hong Kong Independence
Translated by Casey Chang, written and edited by Mervyn Ho (Undergrad, HKUSU August 2016)



After the outbreak of instabilities in the beginning of the year, Hong Kong  now  faces another troubled summer.

The shocking press conference of the bookseller Lam Wing-kei busted the Chinese myth of "one country, two systems" (1C2S). The incident has stirred some uneasiness in the general public, yet it has not made the mainstream “elite politicians” recognise the fragility of the so-called "one country, two systems". Also, Lam's testimony did not receive enough attention from "pro-human right" western countries as they did not exert substantial pressure and sanctions on China regarding the Causeway Bay bookstore incident. The severity of the incident is supposed to be devastating enough to shake the confidence of "1C2S", but it only brings about nothing but merely nominal support from a few local and international pressure groups as a result of weeks of vehement protests. Following the fruitless clash with the police by some localist activists on 1st July, the political energy brought by Lam Wing-kei has gradually died down. All these events serve as a cruel reminder of the indifferent attitude of Hong Kong's public and the realist nature  of international politics.

Meanwhile, as  the LegCo election approaches, the rivalry between newly-rising localist and traditional democratic camp has reached its climax. On political arenas such as 4th June Candlelight Vigil and 1st July Protest, the two sides parted with or even rivalled against each other. With the escalation  of Chinese-Hong Kong tensions and increasing calls for Hong Kong's self-determination or even independence, it is imperative that the political landscape of Hong Kong politics will undergo drastic transformation. We have reached a historical turning point shadowed with uncertainty.Where would the post-1C2S Hong Kong go?

The abrupt end of Lam's incident indicates one thing: no matter how localists strive hard to draw support and to get media coverage, the "self-determination" and "independence" claims have never been treated seriously by the ruling business and social elites. The independence claims are considered by Chinese officials, elites and democrats as "impossible, extreme, populist, xenophobic and self-isolated protectionism, lack of economic and political possibilities" and the ideas are only political opportunism advanced by a small number of radicals, and therefore they should not deserve any attention. They simply consider  the option of independence as "unconstitutional and illegal" and bar the independence supporters from running LegCo election even the decision runs into the risk of violating their civil rights guaranteed by the Basic Law.

The localists’ fury is understandable, but one should keep in mind that elites  only calculate the merits of policies by cost-benefit analysis; the benefits generated by the favourable business environment in China, the access to greater China market, legal protection and the free economy system provided by 1C2S remained supremely important to them. Therefore, according to their cost-benefit analysis – it is imperative that the “minor sacrifices” of the dissidents' civic and political rights   are necessary after all in pursuit of the enormous profits brought by 1C2S. The screams and shouts of protests do not have even the slightest disturbance on the prosperous business activities and the clanking of champagnes that are taking  place in the skyscrapers in Central or Admiralty.

As a result, the city is split into two parts. On one hand there are financial complexes, office towers, and luxuriant shopping malls where high-educated, English and Mandarin-speaking white-collars exchange news of global stock market. On the other hand, it shows an unpleasant image of the city where features jumble of narrow alleys, overcrowded public estate and old mansions inhabited by intermixed neighbourhood of the locals and immigrants speaking various languages and dialects; hawkers running away from the police, smugglers from China chased after by disgruntled local youths. The rapid change of living environment, the sprout of jewellery shops and pharmacies changing the face of old neighbourhood, the invasive presenceof Mandarin, and the skyrocketing housing price level have deepened the anxiety of the locals.

There is an irrevocable gap dividing the city into two parts: the upper class refuses to accept any proposal of reforms and denounces any  form of protest as “radical” since they do not understand the anger and anxiety from the other side. And now who can represent and speak for them? For the past, the democrats played the role of the opposition, but now these law school graduates, “global citizens” are unable to handle such anxiety and to answer their demand for an “imagined community”. In a rather bizarre fashion, “Hong Kong nation” comes into being and becomes an important historical force.

The formation of Hong Kong nation is not only about a nostalgic feeling towards the past, but a serious political discourse and struggle which concerns issues such as immigration policy, allocation of social resources, education and legitimacy of using violence. As the popularity of the Hong Kong nationalism grows, the idea of "us and them" starts to weigh more importance than economic efficiency and universal value in political decision.  Although the essence of Hong Kong nationalism calls into question, the idea itself is widely interpreted as the resistance against the oppression of Chinese nationalism. Hong Kong society changes too rapidly after 1997:  Regardless of the reasons are the oppression of crony capitalism or influx of Chinese immigrants, the truth is that most  Hongkongers feel that the living space that they once enjoyed is increasingly being threatened. The grandiose plan of “Chinese dream” proposed by the Chinese government has failed to turn things around and win the hearts of Hongkongers back. All these factors make the image of “a weak nation against an oppressive power” attractive to many Hongkongers.

Hong Kong nationalists can better capture how the common Hongkongers feel nowadays: its carefully cultivated theories on culture and politics  have successfully separated the”Hong Kong nation” from the nation of China, and associate all social and political issues through  the perspective of “survival of Hong Kong nation”: Issues such as medical reform, the national anthem controversy on the soccer field, the medium of instruction in schools, the clash between street hawkers and policemen, every aspect of people's daily life has been turned into battlefields of fighting for the very existence of Hong Kong nation. The awareness of Hong Kong nationalism grows following each round of political mobilisations and controversies stimulated by social media, and it has profoundly challenged the discourse previously dominated by left-leaning liberals and conservative political economists on socio-political issues.

The mainstream is unable to respond to localist's demand for independence or self-determination with proper ideas  and simply downplays them as "fascists" or "populists”. Both sides lack common vocabularies to discuss their ideas, and the cracks are further widened by  stratosphere effects caused by the use of social media.The divide will only be worse in future.

If Britain had never colonised Hong Kong, or Communist China had never claimed Hong Kong back, or the promise given by 1C2S had been duly fulfilled, then the idea of Hong Kong independence would never become popular. It is ironic that the idea of Hong Kong nation shares the same loophole of Chinese nationalism, both being politically constructed ideas that are manufactured conveniently to serve real-life political needs. However,  precisely because Hong Kong nationalists understand that “nations” are products of real-life political conflicts rather than vice versa, it legitimatizes the birth of the Hong Kong nation against the arbitrary official discourse of Chinese nationalism, which claims that national identity is inherent and unchangeable. It is a truly remarkable historic event that in nowadays world, which national borders are thought to be  stable and colonialism is thought to be part of history, there can be a genuinely new nation given birth in a global metropolis in the peripheral area of China.

The rise of Hong Kong nationalism is an extraordinary by-product under the unique circumstances of Hong Kong history. However, keen observers may find the local separatist movement as part of the historical momentum of populism and the counter-nationalism in the post-modern world. The shocking result of Brexit, or the rise of Donald Trump (and Bernie Sanders) are often seen as the resistance by the upset mass against thglobalisationon, neoliberalism and politic elitism. The step down of Cameron also reveals the disconnection between the British government and European Parliament and the labour class, especially those from the old industrial area.

In the aftermath of Brexit, the mainstream media blamed the Brexit supporters as poorly-educated populists who selfishly destroyed the future of British youths. The arguments ignore the other side of the shinning appearance of the EU: the decline of low value-added industries due to the opening of market, wealth gap brought by neo-liberal policy of tighter fiscal control, slump of workers’ salary, shortage of jobs because of competitions of immigrants, cultural shocks, the influx of refugee, the fears of security. The success of Brexit is not a ridiculous joke but a dire warning to the ruling class in this world.

Many have warned about the EU governance model, but the ruling class remains indifferent and does not treat this rise of right-wing populist seriously. The EU demands British to act according to the result of the referendum, and it plans to punish Britons severely in order to deter anyone who wanted to follow suit. London wanted to postpone the triggering of Article 50. Meanwhile, an international law firm attempts to void the result of referendum through judicial appeal. Also, mainstream media view the majority Brexit supporters with contempt. British leaders are trying hard to block the result decided by the means of direct democracy, which showed the hypocrisy of western parliamentary democracy.

Comparing Hong Kong to these western countries with long democratic tradition, the Hong Kong independence movement has more headwinds include the influence of China's authoritarian regime, the rise of Chinese nationalism and despotic HKSARG, but Hong Kong localists and western right wing nationalists share many similarities: they are both facing dominance from a super-nation organisation or a superpower, economic competition from immigrants, heavier burden of social resources allocation, clash of culturesand degeneration of local lifestyle and habits due to intrusion of cosmopolitanism, and the widening gap between the poor and the elites. Traditional left-right party politics remained solid throughout the world, but cracks and crisis are everywhere. The problem has been aggravated after HKSARG has disqualified a Hong Kong nationalist candidate from running LegCo election. According to the recent survey by CUHK, support for localism remains a minority part of the city’s population. The fact that most of them are young people shows obvious generation differences. However, the voice of discontent would not simply vanish after  they are “muted” in the establishment; they would go back to the streets, to every household, and the uncompromising conflict between these “two Hong Kongs” will persist every day.

The significance of Brexit is that western democracy cannot solve the deep-seated social conflict caused by theglobalised world,  but will aggravate social divisions prolonged conflicts due to the exercise of direct democracy. To Hong Kong nationalists, the ultimate solution of the plight of Hong Kong is not “true democracy” but full independence, border control, reinvigoration of local culture, and strengthening of social bonds and identitys within the same political community However, the leaderless situation of Brexit camp shows that drawing support within the country is not hard, but negotiation with a far more formidable opponent will be a much more challenging  struggle. Weak nations are  ignored in the arena of international politics The nationalists have little bargaining power to gain  substantial international support at the moment: Hong Kong as a financial and logistic hub provides some favourable termsin theory , but they are more possibly the major obstacles for advocates of Hong Kong independence.

No matter it is establishment camp’s agendas such as "Belt and Road initiative" or 'China's dream", pan-dems' "the battle against 689" or localists' "general “self-determination” or "Hong Kong independence", all of them have mistaken Hong Kong as an unified entity without internal conflicts. They thought of bankers, lawyers, labourers, and rag-pickers within a single community as people sharing  common interest and goals e. They often assume that once the common goal is achieved, every Hong Konger will live happily ever after. Such common mistakes are made by both supporters of Hong Kong nationalists and liberals who failed to consider the social class divisions. Diversification and complication exist not only within the “imagined communities” but also among the “ethnic compatriots”. Asking the labour class to accept immigrants competing for jobs is as absurd as requesting business leaders to support the cause of Hong Kong independence. The ideological differences and social division between two sides has generated more strife and conflicts.

The solution, other than the traditional economist’s cost-benefit analysis of “achieve the general good”, must include the leftist's idea of wealth redistribution and nationalist's concern of constructing a shared identity. But if one takes a closer look, he or she may find the contradiction between the basic assumptions behind each of these theories and at the end of the day. It is hard to blame localist youth in taking the “valorous” path of violence after all.

As the society is deeply bipolarised (or tripolarised?), problems are increasingly difficult to  be solved with dialogues or debates. Instead, each side mobilizes its own supporters on the “stratosphere” of social networks and engages in verbal or even physical conflicts. What more likely happens in future is not the glory of independence but the disintegration of the society. Only the unpredictable force of history can tell who can be the final winner. Is the trend a boon or a bane for Hong Kong? Who knows?

Saturday, 20 August 2016

[Undergrad/HKUSU] Stephen Ku: The Empire on its Way to Death

The Empire on Its Way to Death
Translated by Cesar Guarde-Paz, written by Stephen Ku (Undergrad, HKUSU August 2016)
(Photo: Pixabay)
In 1841, shortly after British troops landed Hong Kong, Charles Elliot, Chief Superintendent of British Trade immediately announced that Hong Kong was a free port. Hong Kong’s economy achieved thereafter a rapid growth through entrepôt trade, leading to the subsequent development of other areas, such as the cultural industry. In the 1970s, when the Cultural Revolution broke out in China and right in the middle of a serious setback both to its economy and to its people’s livelihood, Hong Kong’s trade industries were in the apex of its development, gradually rising upon the world’s stage as an international financial centre. Even if there were usual economic exchanges between Hong Kong and China, such as the outflow of capital from Hong Kong’s industries to China in the 1980s and 1990s, the economic systems of Hong Kong and China have always kept an adequate distance between themselves. However, since the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997 the SAR Government has acted as the colonial agents of the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong and has begun to eradicate any difference between Hong Kong and China, for instance, by promoting the “Hong Kong-China economic integration”, slowly making Hong Kong’s economic structure more and more dependent on China’s situation, sowing the seeds for the common notion of “Without Chinese economy there would be no Hong Kong”. In 2003, after the SARS outbreak, Hong Kong and China signed the “Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement” (CEPA), reducing barriers for trading between Hong Kong and China and lifting restrictions for individual visits from China to Hong Kong (Individual Visit Scheme) [translator's note: before China had travel restrictions for its people regarding visiting Hong Kong and Macau]. Since then, the focus of Hong Kong’s economy in trade, tourism, etc. has gradually moved towards China, with Hong Kong suffering a growing influence of the so-called red capitalism.

In an article published in February 2016 under the title “A materialist interpretation of the Chinese Communist Party violation of the promises of ‘One country, two systems; high degree of autonomy’”, political commentator Joseph Lian described how Hong Kong has received the obnoxious influence of red capitalism: “Red capitalism is really fond of Hong Kong. Over the last decade, it has had a significant presence, accounting for 40% to 60% of the total market capitalization of the recent Hong Kong’s stock market. Among the companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, there are usually more than fifteen of the top twenty shares, ranked by market capitalization, which can be labelled as “red capitalism”. Lian points out that red capitalism has already become the “economic foundation” of Hong Kong and is gradually undermining Hong Kong’s culture, politics, institutions, etc.: “The reason everybody is contemplating the distortion and eroding of the ‘One country, two systems; high degree of autonomy’ policy lies not only behind the fact that the ideology of the authorities is different from ours but, more importantly, behind the revelation and implementation of the will behind this red capitalism”. The leak of the Panama Papers shocked the world. An investigation report led by “Ming Pao” revealed that many scions of the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership who possess a Hong Kong Permanent Resident Status control offshore companies. Hong Kong has been reduced to a very convenient place for this crony elite to launder money. Whether it is the influence of red capitalism on Hong Kong, or Hong Kong’s value for this type of capitalism, the question should not be ignored.

The colonial proxies in Hong Kong who continuously endorse the crony elite of the Chinese Communist Party have transformed Hong Kong into the stepping-stone of China’s economic development. In a policy address delivered by CY Leung in 2016, the Chief Executive points out many times how Hong Kong’s economy should continue to move closer to China: “This year marks the start of the National 13th Five-Year Plan and the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the launch of various innovation and technology initiatives.  It will be a year of significant opportunities for Hong Kong’s future.  Taking forward plans in hand, all HKSAR Government departments will be heavily engaged in their work”. Because of this, Leung proposed in his policy address to “enhance co-operation and exchanges between the Mainland and Hong Kong/Macao in the areas of social policies, livelihood issues, technology, culture, education, environmental protection, etc., as well as deepen regional cooperation in the Pan-Pearl River Delta Region.”. Xi Jinping’s proposed strategy, the so-called “Belt and Road initiative”, was mentioned by Leung in his policy address no fewer than 44 times, becoming the “top priority” of his policy address. It is so obvious that how CY Leung brown-nosed China, and help China to make plans for Hong Kong.

Due to the regime’s much trumpeted lemma “Chinese economy improves”, and set against the background of the “Hong Kong-China economic partnership sharing weal and woe”, the discourse of “Hong Kong Independence” is over and over under attack: those against Hong Kong independence, besides the paradoxical argument of “Hong Kong has been a part of China since ancient times”, they will also hardly forget to say “Hong Kong’s economy has always been dependent on China”, “if ‘grandpa’ is not happy, China will impose economic sanctions on Hong Kong”. An editorial published by Wen Wei Po on April 27 criticized Hong Kong independence for bringing terrible economic consequences for Hongkongers: “Founded on the Rule of Law and good government and thanks to the regional advantages due to the motherland’s support and the preferential policies from the central government, Hong Kong has become an international financial, trading, and logistics center. The consequences of ‘Hong Kong independence’ flood will be the disintegration of that position and those advantages. Do Hongkongers want to become the victims of ‘Hong Kong independence’?”. What is noteworthy about this is that those who uphold the aforementioned arguments include, besides the Party mouthpieces endorsing the regime, many pan-democrat activists. The Democratic Legislative Councillor Emily Lau pointed out on a forum in January 2015 that Hong Kong’s food and water resources are dependent on Chinese imports, and a lot of people work either in China or in a company managed by Chinese. Therefore, Hong Kong lacks the prerequisite for independence. 

In a survey conducted this year by HKUSU Undergrad, entitled “Politics and protest”, one of the questions asked was, if Hong Kong should uphold a referendum to decide whether “Hong Kong should become an independent country”. 61% of the students voted in favour of the referendum in case Beijing did not approve it, but with Beijing’s approval, the result was then 65%. This slight difference more or less reflects the attitude of some Hongkongers: they support Hong Kong independence in their hearts, but because they are afraid that an “unhappy” China will take vengeance with economic and border sanctions, they do not dare to stand out. Therefore, on the emergence of Hong Kong independence wave emergence and strengthening, the society is prevalent with bearish sentiments in this wave: some people believe that China is an undefeatable economic and political giant –“If you offend the Chinese Communist Party it won’t end well”, “this tiny piece of land called Hong Kong has to be under their command for good, we cannot oppose it”. But as the story of David and Goliath tells us, even giants can be defeated, and that “empire” called China is by no means invincible.

Why Nations Fail 
American scholars Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson point out in their book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that political institutions are a prerequisite for economic development, and that it is only under inclusive institutions (those with fair market rules and protection of private property rights) that nations can achieve sustainable development. In contrast, extractive institutions (those with a small political elite dominating the country) will lead to the collapse of the country, caught within the vicious circle of extractive political and economic policies whose development cannot be sustained. And after its establishment by the Chinese Communist Party, China’s “political and economic institutions […] were highly extractive” (p. 420). 

In 1978, the Chinese Communist Party decided to focus on economic modernization rather than class struggle, with Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang and others trying to implement inclusive economic institutions. The consequences of opening-up policies reform were that: the rural economy took off and state-owned companies bloomed. However, despite the rapid economic development, the economy was merely developing under an extractive institutional system: in 2003 entrepreneur Dai Guofang’s company competing against a state-owned enterprise led to his detention. Dai is just a victim of the exclusive institutional system, a proof that fair competition is almost impossible to exercise in China. The current governance of the People’s Republic of China is no different from the Soviet Union during the decades of 1960s and 1970s. China “is similarly unlikely to generate sustained growth unless it undergoes a fundamental political transformation toward inclusive political institutions” (p. 151). This is the case for any country in the world, without exception. But the fact remains that the Chinese Communist Party will only maintain a one-party dictatorship and will never allow the existence of any other political party. The authors quote the words of Premier Wen Jiabao: “If there is no guarantee of reform of the political system, then results obtained from the reform of the economic system may be lost”. In an authoritarian regime, even if there is a short period of economic growth, the lack of inclusive institutions and the destruction of creativity will, after all, hinder a long-term development and bring it all to an inescapable end.

In an article published in 2015 by The Wall Street Journal under the title “The Coming Chinese Crackup”, leading China expert David Shambaugh holds similar views with Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. The article points out five indications of the upcoming downfall of the Chinese Communist regime:

First, the economic elites have one foot out the door and they are ready to flee China en masse;
second, Xi Jinping’s regime has intensified its pervasive repression of freedom of press;
third, many regime loyalists are feigning compliance with the empty talk reforms;
fourth, the extend of the corruption problem;
and fifth, the big, hidden troubles that plague China’s economy.

Shambaugh states that the Chinese Communist Party clearly aware of the fact that China’s political system is like the emperor wearing no clothes, and Xi’s tyrannical governance has further pushed China’s system pressure to the brink of a breakdown: “The endgame of Chinese communist rule has now begun, I believe, and it has progressed further than many thinks”. And all the aforementioned problems can only be solved through political reform.

Although in 2016 Shambaugh said that he was not a “collapsist”, but wished China will have a different path, however, this does not affect to his main point, that “without reform, China has no future”. It is clear that today the Chinese Communist Party will not implement fundamental political reforms to resolve its actual crisis. In 2013, Xi Jinping issued the following “Great speech”: “if our party can’t even handle food-safety issues properly, and keeps on mishandling them, then people will ask whether we are fit to keep ruling China”. In 2014 the fourth plenary conference of the eighth session of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party emphasised the “Rule of Law”, “to insist on the dominant role of the people”, “to insist on equality before the law”, etc. And then the Chinese Communist Party promptly overthrew itself: in March 2016 when China suffered the vaccine scandal, each social networking platform in China called for the removal of any “unfavourable” information, including the previous passage from Xi Jinping’s “Great Speech”, which was widely quoted by netizens. A man who asked Xi Jinping to resign was arrested. When on June, the land rights movement in Wukan village erupted again, the activist leader Lin Zulian was taken away by force by the police, who were waiting in the village, fully equipped. Ironically, when the villagers marched they waved the national flag, as they loudly cried out: “Long life to the Chinese Communist Party! Down with corrupt officials! Give us back our land!”. But no one should feel pity for them: a group of fools whose land had been taken away yet are so lucky to have the Party as their consolation, advocating unrealistic feudal ideas such as “I am only against corrupt officials, not against the emperor”. The Chinese Communist Party is a hopeless, hypocrite regime which expects to improve itself by saying things like “according to the Rule of Law” and “Down with corruption” – there is no doubt that these are just the late-night ravings of a lunatic. The Economist has evaluated Xi in the following terms: it seems that Xi Jinping doesn’t have time to make the Chinese Communist Party abide “according to the Rule of Law”, to implement bold social reforms, or to end state-owned enterprise that bankrupted many years ago. Yet, he can use any means necessary to consolidate his own power. Thus, The Economist has called him the “Chairman of Everything” (COE). To expect decentralisation and implementation of inclusive institutions from the Chinese Communist Party is like climbing a tree to catch a fish.

It is the nature of the Chinese communist regime to get rid of the person who points out the problem, rather than getting rid of the problem itself. In fact, the nature of the Chinese communist governance is exactly the same as described in Why Nations Fail. When governance, economic and any other type of crisis accumulate over and over, those in power will turn a blind eye and bury their heads in the sand. Finally, we should point to Why Nations Fail’s prophecy: its economic growth being unsustainable, China will fail. Or as The Washington Post editor Jackson Diehl puts it in his article “The Coming Collapse: Authoritarians in China and Russia Face an Endgame”: 
“Revolutions are, of course, unpredictable. Some regimes fall sooner than seemed possible until the event occurs; some linger long after their demise has become inevitable. But the recent history of unfree countries has shown that while breaking points are hard to anticipate, there is a common set of conditions that sets the stage for change”.
When in 2015 China faced a rare case of national stock market crisis, the signs of China’s economic storm roared like a thunder. On February 2016, Joseph Lian pointed out that the Chinese economic miracle already started to decline in 2008 and, would it not stop, in three years their economy would experience negative growth. “If Beijing’s attempts to counter-attack by force result in conflict, its crisis-ridden economy is likely to collapse: and if it doesn't use force to counter attack, the myth of nationalism will also be shattered into pieces”.

As China buries itself, those enjoying the comfort zone should be alert 
As for today, there are still a lot of Hongkongers who believe that Hong Kong’s economy can only rely on China, that “If Hong Kong is fine, China will be fine; if China is fine, Hong Kong will be even better”. This is especially true for the financial sector. Little do they know that behind China’s apparent national prosperity, a nation is dying inside. It is a matter of time before the wind blows out the candle.

At present China still relies on its sovereignty over Hong Kong and continuously makes use of the world’s freest economy. Nevertheless, the consequences of the invasion of red capitalism will not only be a Chinese model of business or the erosion of the values treasured by Hongkongers, but also the ripple effect of the explosion caused by China’s political and economic crisis. Before doomsday arrives for China and continually spreads over the present situation of Hongkongers, even if Hong Kong’s nationalism does not have a common front, it will eventually awake: to save ourselves, we should first cut any ties with China.

Leave China for self-determination. Save Hong Kong. 

Monday, 15 August 2016

Atsuna: De-politicization and Injustice

Atsuna: De-politicization and Injustice
Translated by Karen L., written by Atsuna (written in February 2013)
Original: https://atsunablog.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/%E5%8E%BB%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E5%8C%96%E8%88%87%E5%8E%BB%E6%AD%A3%E7%BE%A9%E5%8C%96/ 


(A primary 2 student was asked if she knows what "vote" means in a documentary)

One may have noticed the recent presence of “the Sounds of Silence” in Hong Kong community. They insist that “politicisation” is not a positive attribute of any place. In their point of view, politicians are to be divisive and the post-90s citizens are too inexperienced to handle things right. To them, conflicts, regardless of any nature, will only sew discord within the city. Frowned at each sight of aggressive protestors, they seriously believe that the one and only survival way-out left for Hong Kong is “de-politicization”.

These people are not entirely formed by groups of paid Internet ghostwriters employed by the establishment camp. Many of them are made blind as a result of comfortable lives. Without realising that politics is accounted for one after another leap forward for the city, the naïveté in them allows the spread of an unascertainable belief of which Hongkongers’ political apathy contributes to the undivided attention on economics and the subsequent prosperity.

In 1949, a good number of funds and talents entered, and thus favoured Hong Kong due to the fall of China. The cold war after that drew the iron curtain that separated China from the western world, while Hong Kong connecting to both sides managed to create an economic legend with entrepôt dominance. As to the welfare system in Hong Kong, basically, it is established to prevent another wave of Hong Kong 1967 Leftist riots and to placate the widespread anger among the population. Before the deadline of 1997’s Handover, the game plan for the British Hong Kong Government was to add more bargaining chips in the political negotiations with the Chinese Communist Party.1 Suddenly, repudiated the autocracy they used to practice, the government suggested to put parliamentary democracy into execution. Had it not been stymied by the Chinese Communist Party, we would have known at first hand the benefits brought by “politicisation”: ordinary men can vote to protect themselves from dignitaries’ corruption.

Over a long period of time, the governments in charge have hypnotised Hongkongers into believing that their meaning of life is supposed to devote as politically apathetic economic animal. Subconsciously, this misleading move has rationalised the fully negative image of politics. The word “Politicisation”, similar to the slang “Kong gals”, is thought to carry only derogatory connotations. Skipping further exploration to that common idea, many gullible people fall for such casuistry. Condemning CY Leung for his unauthorized building works, to them, is “politicisation”; uploading pictures of mainland Chinese’s wrongdoings in Hong Kong society and criticizing those behaviours, to them, are applications of “politicization”; realizing the so-called integration between Hong Kong and Mainland China to be an annexation, to them, is again “politicization”... By taking a deeper thought to that, one will notice that the people with the notion to “de-politicize” turn out to take an unfathomable liking to “politicisation”. To achieve whatever purpose, an unfailing  explanation to the man-made flux of mislabeling on every opposition is the advantage attached to the surefire moral-high-ground position — one does not have to bother one’s head about making persuasive counter-arguments.

Being well aware of the above advantages, mainland China is probably the most successful representative to deploy omnipresent “de-politicization" — zero freedom to talk about politics within the country. What is more, in this world of “de-politicization", any action carrying the faintest trait of politicisation is to be oppressed by the authority. People requesting the government to implement the constitution is regarded an incitement to subvert state power; people demanding that those infant formula companies make reasonable compensation, it is public nuisance; people making petitions in an attempt to overthrow forced eviction end up in labour camps... The specifically designed search engines adoptable in the country even filter out “Communist Party” because it is too sensitive a word for its people. Such extreme is destined for an opposite extreme. Thanks to that, there’s a whole new world of politicisation born where political trickeries are so common even to kids who are far from reaching mental maturity.

(A primary 2 student said she had no idea what is democracy in a documentary)

A documentary called Please Vote for Me2 talks about an election of class monitor among some primary 2 students in Wuhan, China. It begins with a boy saying his grounds to stand for election. He says, “A class monitor represents power. The class has to stand and sit under the command of the class monitor.” At this young age, this boy has come into contact with “pork barrel” promising his classmates seats in the class association for a vote. Plus, he instigates others to “mobilise the masses” and to sabotage the talent show on the spot so other candidates wouldn’t gain advantages. There are no lengths to which this child will not go to gain power and influence. Adept politicking and aberrant enthusiasm in power, unquestionably, are nothing common to children in ordinary countries.

At the beginning of the documentary, another competitor refuses his police-officer parents’ offer to “help him do something” for more votes. To us, it seems to be an odd enough offer. And this boy does appear to have a backbone like ramrod at that time and he says, “I don’t want to control them. Let them think. They can vote for whoever they want.” But then, he suffers from a competitor’s politicking and decides to take his parents’ suggestion. Free “guanxi” trip on the railway for the whole class and distributing pre-mid-Autumn-festival presents in front of everyone before the vote bribe his way to a win.

In the end of it, interestingly, the teacher concludes with this: Be it victory or loss, every one of you has learned a "precious" lesson...  The teacher also mentions that this lesson is going to play a huge role in their growth path. The camera captured a fairly dramatic final scene: the losing candidates are required to shake hands with the winning candidate and to say a few words of blessing to him; the class is filled with claps; on the wall of that very classroom, there hangs a Chinese banner that reads "embrace integrity and bravery; be diligent and a constant thinker". I assume that those kids truly benefited a great deal. After all, now that the kids know mere politicking is far from being effective, the prudential policy to cope with villains is to be one of them — suppressing the masses — and to confuse people by giving them advantages at certain times. An unpleasant surprise is that to them, the foul measures to meet purposes can still be divided into "better" and "worse".

An almost universally accepted opinion of politics is that it is a disgust, which politicians brazenly enjoy vested interests through demagogueries. Precisely because of it, the need to eliminate the possibility of black-box operations shall not be ignored. Those sayings which advocate creating "a better world" by "de-politicization" are ridiculous lies indeed.

Yim Man-wa, an activist, was charged with an assault on a police officer (Translator’s note: On 2012’s Hong Kong 1 July demonstration, the protestors had waited for hours before they can start. Some participants demanded the police to retract the blockages at Causeway Road so as to make way for protestors. Yim hunkered and crossed the cordon line. Some police officers were there carrying her away and she bet one of them.) and had to serve her sentence in a rehabilitation centre.

Originally it was a perfectly normal school event to visit these centres as it serves as an alert so that the students are aware of the consequences if they go astray. But I wonder that if defending for a good cause continued to be looked down, these centres would eventually deteriorate into some coward factories from where the visitors would get the idea to not come forward against injustice.

The authority’s repression of dissent in modern Hong Kong has aggravated without scruple, and yet commoners should carry on the mission impossible to avoid being too “politicised”? Isn’t it an obvious means to force people to return to the “motherland”?

In the name of “de-politicization” again and again, the authority lowers the value of justice. A society where early education is about to follow the opposite direction of justice and to learn by heart all those dark unspoken rules is never a society with justice. Just as communism to mainland China, justice may seem to be theoretically acceptable, but underneath, if you talk about the true application of it, the people there will laugh their hands off. So, back to “de-politicisation”, what is it? The most powerful trick of the authority.



1. Chris Patten, a former governor of Hong Kong, suggested the 1994 Hong Kong electoral reform in an attempt to make it a more direct-election-like form. The plan is that 9 functional constituencies would be added to the Legislative Council and the employees in those industries would be entitled to vote. Beijing banned the suggestion and the primary unit of the current functional constituencies is a company. In other words, only a few employers have the right to vote in this aspect.

2. The Full movie of Please Vote for me with English subtitles is available in Youtube:
     1/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pZsCg-1fQ8
     2/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVqZz4CIDys
     3/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ku6SVaRKx4
     4/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTSM71a6_M8
     5/5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJNbTXYpE0

Tuesday, 9 August 2016

[Undergrad/HKUSU] Meet the Poet Who Breaks through the Crevasse: Nicholas Wong

Meet the Poet Who Breaks through the Crevasse: Nicholas Wong
Written by Rainbow Wong (Undergrad, HKUSU, August 2016)
Nicholas Wong (photo by Donald Yiu)


Born and raised in Hong Kong, “Asia’s World City” dubbed by the local tourism board, the Lambda Literary Award winner, Nicholas Wong Yu-bon, feels that there are certain “off-ness” in his identities. He writes poems in English, his second language, and is gay in a city that does not even have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Nevertheless, this is no obstacle to his creativity—if anything, it has opened up a world of myriad possibilities for him.

The purple book cover of Crevasse features a hole full of cross-shaped bacteria revealed by a paper crack. Inspired by a poem about gloryholes and crucifixions, he designed it with an artist from Los Angeles, as he told Time Out Hong Kong earlier. “The title Crevasse suggests a crack that opens up an originally intact surface to reveal what possibly exists beneath it,” Wong explained the name of his latest poetry collection, which earned him the US-based awards, also known as the “Lammys”, in the gay poetry category. Now in their 28th year, the awards recognize and celebrate L.G.B.T. books from a variety of genres published in the U.S. each year.  The award ceremony this year was held in early June at New York University. 

The hidden gem of English poetry

In brutal honesty, the local poetry scene has not been remarkably exuberant and it seemingly applies even more so for poetry written in the English language, which might be more challenging to read for many locals. But English poetry greatly enchants Wong: He likes the reading and writing of the genre, and is drawn to “the in-between-ness, the ambiguity, the clarity that is always defined by opacity”, as he said. As an English major at HKU, he grew used to writing many texts for each course and enjoyed doing it. But his interest in writing poetry really sparked off in his third year, when he was enrolled in a whole-year creative writing course taught by Shirley Lim, which explored the craft of poetry and short stories. It was not without difficulty, though. As he said, “The challenges, back then, were the literary vacuum, by which I meant I hadn't had the chance to read a lot of poetry—classical and contemporary. I believe that reading the right poems is the key to writing drafts that are worth keeping.  This said, the course let me know I was, to say the least, interested in creative writing, or creating per se.”

He then went on to complete a master’s degree in comparative literature at HKU. His fondest memories are the simplest ones. “I liked simply sitting in a classroom and listening to professor talk about interesting ideas that ultimately changed one's perspective in seeing things. They're sharing their lifetime wisdom and research with you in two hours. It's actually a good deal, from the economic point of view,” he said.

Against all odds

Wong also took the City University’s MFA in Creative Writing in 2010, an Asian-themed, low-residency program of which many local English writers were alumni. Unfortunately, the program was axed in the Summer of 2015 amid protests from current students, graduates and authors worldwide. Wong was among those who signed the letter against the university's decision. "That MFA program was different from any of the regular ones that run courses by semester. Therefore, it had to be funded by a different financial model. However, the management wasn't very flexible in creating a new funding model to keep the program. Their reluctance could be a shortsightedness, or a complicated administrative decision. It's ironic to close the program when the university advocated a truly global body of studentship. I have never been in a program more global than MFA," he said.

“Literature grows in Hong Kong. There are more and more quality readers and daring writers, both for the Chinese and English literary scenes. But it's almost true to say literature is marginalized because the people making important policies are not very good readers or writers themselves.” But despite all the challenges, “The more marginalized an artist, the more creative energy he has,”as Wong quoted singer-songwriter Anthony Wong Yiu-ming.

Poring over his poems, many may sense a dash of social sensitivity between the lines. Writers should make use of their discomfort as inspiration, Wong believes. "To me, politics is related to one's existence and positioning in a community," he said. "I do believe that good writings should transgress and subvert."

'Just another relationship'

Avid film watchers would be familiar with the delicate yet turbulent romance of two young souls in Wong Kar-wai's Happy Together (1997). It is something quite different from other local films of its time because of the straightforward depiction of a gay romance. Wong likes the film a lot, as he explained, “It doesn't bother explaining the homosexuality of the two protagonists. It's just another relationship. We need more films and TV dramas like this to counter the misrepresentation of queerness in Hong Kong or Asian popular culture.”

In his other interviews, he has been emphasizing that "gay poetry" is there only for the ease of categorization by the press, bookstores and the like. After all, labelling is perhaps dispensable, if the focus is on a poet's work and not his identity.

There are quite a few queer poets whom Wong admires, from across the world, including Cyril Wong (Singapore), Jee Leong-koh (Singapore), C. Dale Young (America), Timothy Liu (America), Danez Smith (America), Ocean Vuong (America), D. A. Powell (America) and Kazim Ali (America).

The collection

When asked about Crevasse, Wong said, “There are poems that are deeply personal, whereas there are some pieces that depart from the personal and try to explore the personal with the social. The worst assumption of reading poetry or any literature is that everything on the page is autobiographical.  This reading is very reductive. In fact, can we ever tell if incidents in the poem have happened? Why bother? Poetry should start with what is known and push itself towards exploring the unknown."

Although Wong does not have a favorite poem in the collection and interestingly, avoids reading the entire collection, there is a poem which holds a special place in his heart. “There is a poem called ‘Side Effects of Leukaemia’, and it's written for a dear friend who passed. He's been supportive of my dream,” he said.

We have hand-picked two poems from Crevasse with which many might resonate according to life in Hong Kong. "Postcolonial Zoology" explores the intricacies of race and colonization, while "Neighbor" looks into the intersections between one's private and public life.

Postcolonial Zoology
1997, Hong Kong

It is not the pedigreed corgis they left
at the handover, but the effigy of the Queen
on toothed stamps being self-important

in dusted albums. We bolted to banks to trade
for new coins. We went to the West, away
from communist coxswains, but were whittled

to sculptures called “second-tier citizens,”
second to terriers. Our being could start
a chapter in zoology: we are inedible

bilingual centaurs spreading swine flu
at the turn of the century, we are comrades
of a blue whale found ashore due to sonic

confusion, caribous on a cruise to Malibu.
Even what we remembered migrated to corners
invisible in brain scans. In Mandarin Oriental,

India, a TV host devoured British scones
and circumscribed cucumber sandwiches
on his sun porch that looked over to rice fields.

A butler next to him. He called the experience
authentic. So were the bees buzzing in air,
sick of their queen too lazy to move.

Words from the poet:
"I once watched a travel show on Discovery Channel late at night, and was bothered by how the white male host enjoyed being served by colored resort staff. Well, from an economic point of view, there seemed to be nothing wrong there. He paid for the service. He got it. Yet, the semiotics of the scenes is deeply troubling."

Neighbor

Every death is a local event every local

avoids. The way we zigzag our way
by the gate to avoid this spot the skull

has crushed then opened like a generous

guava.  e way we think the chalked
outline of the victim, a man, hardly

synopsizes the outlined body we carry

thus know of. The way a tent is zipped
to eclipse his plunge from public talks

because he has taken another he too personally,

privately—the myth of love bisects these he’s,
who wet their love for myths with well-meant selves.

Tomorrow, the street will reek of bleach,

will gray as if intolerant of red, and stories
of the spot be untold by bold tire tracks.

A wreath by the curb

tilts, an umbrella, unclaimed, waits
for better weather to disclose its ribs.

Words from the poet:
"People jumped from buildings to kill themselves in Hong Kong. There's a certain haunting quality in walking on the road, where the night before, someone's head might have been crushed like 'an open guava'. I don't mean haunting in the spectral sense, but how tragedies and deaths can be quickly 'sanitized' for a regular, normal life to resume its pace."

[5 Aug 2016 Rally] Edward Tang: There is the time to defy, and there is the time to rally.

Edward Tang's Speech on Hong Kong National Party - “Defend for Democracy, Hong Kong Independence” Rally
Transcribed by Nick, Translated by Timothy and Judy, spoken by Edward Tang
[ The English translation is released under Creative Commons, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ]
(Source: Undergrad, HKUSU Instant News)

Because I’m more of a writer than a speaker, so I am going to refer to my script.

Firstly, I would like to thank Hong Kong National Party for inviting me to speak today.

Today is a historical day, not because it’s another “darkest day for democracy in Hong Kong”, but because we have reached new heights. Just look at the words behind me: “Hong Kong Independence”. Today, localism and independentism have finally become political platforms, and even reasons for the election commission to bar candidates.

As mentioned earlier on Facebook, Ma Man-fai, the true father of Hong Kong independence, foresaw the future of Hong Kong almost 70 years ago. He saw a trend of independentism and self-determinism around the globe, so he became active in the political sphere, using all he had to promote Hong Kong independence. But everybody back then thought he was crazy. Gaining independence under British Rule? You wish. So, people later involved in the democratic movements over the years have long forgotten this person of significance.

But nowadays, we all know that Hong Kong independence is no longer a pipe dream, because 19 years since the handover, after tens of years of democratic movements, there has never been a bigger defeat than today! There has never been a worse state for the geographical constituency since the first election in 1991. Pan-democrats, whom we once trusted, couldn’t do anything about it (the disqualification of localist candidates), and would instead tell you “I’ll start righting this wrong after I win.” Some may even ridicule localists/independentists and tell you to “move over”. (referring to the incident where Pan-democrats held an emergency demonstration to protest against the disqualification of HK National Party’s Chan Ho-Tin. During the demonstration, one of the participants, Erica Yuen, told Chan to move over because he was blocking their path) How can we stand this any longer? Pan-democrats tell you they are here to fight for democracy, yet after three whole decades, we are going backwards. Are you telling me that the political screening we have today is their biggest contribution to the fight for democracy?

This time, the Electoral Affairs Commission became the SAR or even Chinese Communist Party’s minion, censoring localist candidates by their platforms, actions, words or even their thoughts, using accusations of “ulterior” motives to deprive them of their political rights for life. As the old saying goes: “Whatever the superior loves, his subordinates will be found to love exceedingly.” When the Communist Party wants to deprive its citizens of their rights, they would put on a show and pretend to put their political prisoners “to trial” - one was just sentenced to seven years in jail. Hong Kong however has taken this a step forward: They are able to sentence you to political death, barring you from running in elections ever again just because they believe you are politically “guilty”.

When it has come to this, what is left to be said? We Hongkongers should have dropped all fantasies about universal suffrage when the Communist Party announced its decision on 31/8. However, people continue to deceive themselves, hoping that the Communist Party would someday change their minds and at least give Hong Kong “Birdcage Democracy” (Democracy within Beijing’s boundaries), so that Hongkongers can eat, sleep, and live another day in peace. Therefore, even with events such as the 79-day Umbrella Revolution occupation, soon afterwards, people acted as if nothing has happened.

But localists never forgot. Never.

Lam Wing-kee, the Causeway Bay bookseller (who was kidnapped and kidnapped out of Hong Kong via smuggler boats by Communist Party officials), told Singaporean press: “Hong Kong Independence is realistic and feasible.” Although his political views may not align with those of localists or independentists, how did he reach this conclusion? Simple: The human race longs for freedom, and people who have been held captive, who have once lost their freedom, would recognize just how precious freedom is. Living in Hong Kong today, we face the potential loss of our freedom to assemble, our freedom to associate and even our freedom of speech. Basic Law has become nothing but scrap paper, and we never know when we would be captured and smuggled out of Hong Kong against our will. Our personal security is at risk. How is this any different from being in jail?

The Communist Party is using all tricks up its sleeve to bash localists, not just because they fear political separatism, but more importantly, Hong Kong independence is feasible. And because it is realistic, our actions are monitored even more rigorously than before. The government has been using the police and the law to intimidate us, trying to discourage and lead us astray from the path to freedom, but we are not afraid. Our beliefs are firm. We are ready to sacrifice for our beliefs and for Hong Kong, working towards what we have today.

Still, we currently do not have enough strength to start a revolution. Polls have reported a 15% to 17% support for Hong Kong independence, which is not a small number, but it must be understood that these people may not support radical means for the fight all at once. If we look at Taiwan’s Independence movement, they are 30 years ahead of us, whereas our stage has only been set today. We need some patience to do the following:

Firstly, education. By explaining and promoting independence concepts, we need to let the general public understand the importance of independence, and encourage them to care more for Hong Kong’s future. Secondly, set an example. When people question the benefits and feasibility of Hong Kong Independence, we must at least know how to respond. Most importantly, we must build strength in areas other than social activism. Public opinion cannot be moved in a flash.

The Occupy Central rally, held here two years ago, used more than a year to get enough people on board with the idea of street occupation. To push for the mammoth undertaking of independence, we need more time, manpower and resources. These we must accumulate bit by bit. Whether we run for elections, form associations, recruit talent, or even appear on media and battle the war of public opinion, we must fight for publicity; we must prepare ourselves for when the tides do turn.

This rally today might be advertised as “PRVP” (Peaceful, Rational, Violence-free, Profanity-free)1, no different from the ones held by left-wing activists. But here I’ll make it very clear: Their flavour of “activism” has never had a goal, a direction, or a plan. They make it look like it’s activism for the masses, activism that targets the regime, but in reality, they have always been elitists, refusing to trust the masses. Therefore, nothing happens after their demonstrations, and another day is gone.

We’re not like them; we have clear goals and complete plans. We are not doing this for applause, for the cameras or simply for venting. We are doing this to survive under Communist Party oppression, and to win this long battle. In the end, we will seize our sovereignty from the hands of the Chinese Communist Party!

At last, keep this in mind: There is the time to defy, and there is the time to rally. Thank you.


1. Hong Kong Columns (Translated) translate 和理非非 as PRNN - peaceful, rational, non-violent, non-swearing.

因為我本身呢就寫慣嘢,就唔係好識講嘢噉樣,所以就要睇稿啦。
噉首先第一件事,要多謝咗民族黨今日邀請我嚟呢到講返兩句噉樣。
今日,係非常之重要嘅日子,並唔係因為所謂香港民主最黑暗嘅一天,而係因為香港行到呢一步。你睇吓我身後呢四隻字:「香港獨立」。本土主義、獨立思潮到到今日,終於正正式式成為政治綱領,甚至成為選委員篩選立法會候選人嘅一個理由。
早前喺面書都講過,距離今日差唔多七十年前嘅港獨之父馬文輝,對於香港嘅前途,一早就有先見之明。佢睇到當時世界各地存在好多嘅獨立或者自決嘅思潮,於是就下定決心,積極噉樣參與政治,出錢出力去宣傳佢嘅港獨思想。但係當其時幾乎所有香港人都係當佢痴線嘅。喺英國治下搞港獨?你痴心妄想啦。結果香港經營咗咁多年嘅民主運動,幾乎忘記咗呢個曾經喺香港咁重要嘅人物存在。
但係到咗今時今日,大家都知道,港獨唔再係一個妄想,因為香港主權移交咗十九年,爭取民主運動行咗幾十年,從來都冇試過今日咁大嘅挫敗!行返去一九九一年第一次有立法局選舉之後,直選議席從來未試過咁惡劣嘅地步。我哋曾經相信過嘅泛民對呢件事不單止一啲嘢都做唔到,仲會同你講:「我選贏咗先同你攞返個公道啦。」有啲甚至會話俾你聽,對於港獨或者本土派冷嘲熱諷:「唔該借借!」噉試問我哋仲可以忍落去咩?泛民主派口口聲聲話俾你聽爭民主,爭咗三十幾年,家陣逆水行舟,難道你話俾我聽,今時今日嘅篩選就係佢哋爭民主最大嘅貢獻?
選委會今次充當特區政府甚至係中共嘅鷹犬爪牙,用政見、用言行,甚至係思想,審查我哋本土派嘅候選人,用無數嘅誅心之論剝奪本土派嘅政治權利終身。正所謂「上有好者,下必甚焉」,中共要剝奪公民嘅政治權利,至少都要做吓樣,去審判政治犯——啱啱就判咗個七年幾啦。但係香港今日唔再需要,一句莫須有,就可以判晒你哋所有人嘅政治死刑,終身都唔可以再參選。
去到呢一步大家仲有啲咩好講啊?早喺中共頒佈八三一決定嘅一日,我哋香港人就唔應該對所謂嘅真普選心存幻想。但係香港人仍然每日喺到呃緊自己,希望中共回心轉意,俾個鳥籠民主香港囉。大家食餐安樂茶飯,平平安安又一日咯。所以就算遮打革命七十九日嘅大型佔領,好快大家好似就冇咗件事嘞。

但係本土派從來都冇忘記過呢啲事情;從來都冇。

記得銅鑼灣書店嘅林榮基先生喺接受新加坡傳媒訪問嘅時候主動對記者講:「香港獨立係切實可行嘅。」雖然林先生嘅政見未必同本土獨派相似,但係點解佢會得出呢個結論呢?原因好簡單:人從來都係嚮往自由、自主,尤其係經歷被囚禁、失去自由嘅人,更加知道自由嘅可貴。當下嘅香港,我哋面臨住嘅係集會自由、結社自由,連言論自由都要禁制,《基本法》就係廢紙,我哋唔知幾時俾人哋捉去洗頭艇,人身安全都係問題。喺中共治下,人人自危。噉我哋同坐監其實有幾大分別呢?

中共之所以要千方百計打擊本土派,固然係因為政治上面嘅恐懼分離主義,但係更加重要嘅係,香港獨立,切實可行。而亦都係因為切實可行,我哋一舉一動更加受到控制、監視。政府用警察、用法律去威嚇我哋,試圖令我哋爭取自由嘅路越行越遠。但係我哋唔驚,我哋信念堅定,敢於為香港、為理想獻身,不斷噉努力,行到今時今日呢一步。

雖然係噉,我哋暫時都仲未累積到足夠嘅力量去發起革命。要知道依家坊間唔同嘅民調數字話俾我哋聽,支持香港獨立嘅人有百分之十五到十七,為數都唔少,但係要知道呢班人未必一下子就支持勇武抗爭,用激烈嘅反抗去爭取獨立。我哋睇返台灣嘅建國運動,行咗三十幾年,但係香港今日先至有個大會、有個大台,啱啱起步。我哋係需要啲耐性去做以下嘅事。

首先,係要教育群眾,慢慢透過講解、宣傳,感染佢哋,認識香港獨立嘅重要性,更加關心香港嘅命運同埋前途。同時我哋自己要做一個好嘅榜樣,喺人哋問到、質疑到香港獨立係咪咁好啊、係咪不可行嘅時候,我哋至少要識得點樣去回應。而更加重要嘅係,除咗喺社運之外,我哋係要建立實力;要知道民氣並唔係一時三刻可以累積得到。

喺兩年前同樣喺呢到嘅和平佔中集會,其實都要花咗成年幾嘅時間先至累積到街頭佔領嘅概念嘅。我哋要全面實現獨立,係更加複雜嘅工程,需要更加多嘅時間、人力同埋物力去做。而呢啲資源,我哋係要不斷噉去累積。無論係參選議會、籌組組識、吸納人材,甚至係傳媒報道、打輿論戰,我哋要喺各個範疇爭取我哋嘅發言權,儲到足夠嘅力量,喺足夠嘅變故之前,時刻做好準備。

所以今日嘅集會大家話係和理非啦,同左翼社運人士好似冇分別噉樣。但係喺到我清楚話俾你聽,佢哋嘅社運,從來都係冇目標、冇方向、冇好好噉計劃去實現。講就話針對政權、群眾運動,但係做其實就菁英心態,從來都唔信任群眾,所以大家每次都做完就算,返屋企瞓覺。

但係我哋唔同。我哋嘅目標明確,計劃周詳,為嘅並唔係少少掌聲,唔係鏡頭,唔係一時嘅宣洩,而係點樣喺中共壓迫底下生存,長期作戰,打贏呢場仗。我哋最後要喺中共手上面奪取返我哋嘅主權!

最後,要記住就係:勇武有時,集氣有時。多謝各位。

[5 Aug 2016 Rally] Jason Chow: "One Day, We Can Return Here & Make Our HK's Tennis Court Oath"

Jason Chow's Speech on Hong Kong National Party - “Defend for Democracy, Hong Kong Independence” Rally
Transcribed by William, translated by William and Sidney, spoken by Jason Chow Ho-fai
[ The English translation is released under Creative Commons, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ]
(Source: Undergrad, HKUSU Instant News)
Hello everyone, I am the spokesperson of the Hong Kong National Party. Well, on the rally last Friday, I mistakenly said that I was the convener - actually, I am the spokesperson, alright. My name is Chow Ho-fai, so today we have such a large and peaceful gathering; many were displeased with peaceful gatherings, or perhaps doubtful, and that is because the Pan-Democratic camp has for the last nineteen years, squandered each and every chance when we had one. Peaceful assemblies were supposed to be a way to gather the crowd, such that we can wait for an opening to put up a fight on the streets or to launch an operation against the government. Yet the Pan-Democrats dismissed the crowd and send everyone home at the boiling point, time after time. Many a great opportunity never have the chance to become something.

Before I say what I am supposed to say today, let me talk about our publicity materials. I trust that everybody here must have received leaflets on the footbridge over there, when you came here from the Admiralty Centre. On one side, it just says “Independence!” followed by an exclamation mark. So what is it all about? If you are holding one, you can take a look right now. Actually, it lists the doubts that many Hong Kong people, many normal citizens have: how would it be possible for Hong Kong to become independent, or specifically, why does Hong Kong have what it takes to become an independent sovereign state. They always say, “if we declare independence, then you won’t have a water supply, and you losers would starve”. That is not true actually, Hong Kong does not rely on China much in terms of food supply. In fact, China is the biggest food importer in the world. As for freshwater, Singapore utilizes desalination and Hong Kong can follow their example.

Many said that they are going to let loose the PLA, but then they did not do that on the 28th of September, they just called the police. Why did they not do that is important - Hong Kong is a place that holds a lot of capital and property for Xi Jinping, his families and many more CCP higher-ups, as they shift their assets out of China. As such, suggesting that the PLA would march out and purge Hong Kong is preposterous and I do not believe that it could happen.

That PLA barracks over there, don’t have the wrong idea that it houses a whole bunch of tough, seasoned warriors. The ones are garrisoned in Hong Kong, are the ones who got here via “guanxi” (special relationships). Because life in the Hong Kong Garrison is wonderful, it is not taxing at all. Shall we Hongkongers be afraid of them? Of course not. Why haven’t Hongkongers make a breakthrough politically all these years? It’s because our greatest fear lives in us ourselves. Hongkongers lack the courage to face their fears. They think that whoever makes the first move will be suppressed, or even have their property raided and confiscated. This fear came from the June 4th incident, when the older generations witnessed, either on television or at the Tiananmen Square, the PLA slaughtering the people with tanks and armies. Then, of course I should be talking about the conditions that make Hong Kong independence possible. I will now start what I really want to talk about today.

Hongkongers have faced many difficulties and hardships in these nineteen years. Ever since the Handover in 1997, Hongkongers went from fighting for high ideals such as political rights, to struggling for basic subsistence like living space. What we are facing today, what many Hongkongers are facing today is not just the loss of political rights or freedom, but an existential threat. You Hongkongers would find it extremely difficult to rent a flat, and even a niche for your ashes would be a hard to come by. It’s hard enough to sort out the funeral rites in Hong Kong after you die, not to mention actually living here.

We have gone from the pursuit of democracy and liberty, to struggling for basic survival rights and space. Then what made Hongkongers live in agony for the last nineteen years? It was that fateful night in 1997, when Hongkongers and Hong Kong did not choose a road to independence and self-sufficiency, but they chose, or rather, those so-called intellectuals and elites chose for all Hongkongers, and also the next generation, to return to China. They think that “democratic return to China” is the right thing to do, they think it is the only proper and just course. And so Hongkongers, including our generation, and the future generations, have to bear the consequences. We have to struggle for our own most basic right to live and basic freedoms.

Actually what I am trying to say is Hongkongers absolutely have the ability to govern ourselves. I believe Hongkongers do possess the ability to create a happy society, and I believe Hongkongers have the ability stand amongst the West or Japan, amongst these countries and not be found wanting. Yet why do Hongkongers today have to worry about whether our nominated candidates would be disqualified, and feel gracious when they aren’t? Why have we sunk so low? Many people claim that there is something wrong with Hong Kong, but no, Hong Kong is fine. All the problems are with the Chinese, China is the crux of the problem. The Chinese government is the problem, not you Hongkongers.

Hongkongers have wasted too much time. You have done nothing at all in these nineteen years. By nothing, I mean that all you have done is participating in peaceful gatherings - there is nothing wrong inherently with the gatherings, but you gained nothing valuable from them. You did not start to organize the resistance back then when Hong Kong fell to China. That’s what went wrong. We have started late, we need to catch up. Many questioned how could we possibly realize Hong Kong Independence, or they say ordinary citizens would not take heed because they value their job more than their rights. My response is this: every Hongkonger have their own part to play in furthering the goal of Hong Kong Independence. Everyone can do something within their own abilities and positions, like Hitsujiko just said - if you are part of the middle-class, you can make monetary contributions or support the movement; if you are working in IT, you can help Independentist organisations build their websites, can’t you?

I am confident that every citizen have a role to play in promoting Hong Kong Independence. They each have the ability to contribute. Many people (mistakenly) claim: “oh, revolution must be a sudden outburst, it must be done with guns, there must be confrontation with the police, or throwing bricks”, so one and so forth. But revolution not only a sudden outburst of passion, it is also a rational and calculated move. Sun Yat-sen attempted a grand total of eleven revolutions in China. The eleventh time finally worked out, and that, the Revolution of 1911 was just a fluke - the Hupeh garrison was rotated into Szechwan. Still, without Dr Sun, or Huang Hsing and the Revive China Society, without them evangelizing the cause in the South Seas, without them spreading ideas about revolution, the revolution would have never occurred in the first place.

And now what Hongkongers should do in these long and brooding days, besides waiting for the oncoming revolution, is to spread the words. Talk to your colleagues, your parents, your friends - tell them why Hong Kong must become independent now, why Hong Kong Independence is the only way out for each and every citizen. The path to independence may be perilous, but look to those standing with you, look at those familiar faces. In striving towards independence, you will not be alone.

In these nineteen years the Pan-Democrats have preached the concept of democracy at rallies, but how many truly understand what democracy is? The Pan-Democrats have their interpretation, the Pro-Establishments have another twisted and tortured interpretation, yet I reckon that there are two concepts central to democracy: first, the people, that is the nation of Hong Kong; secondly, the sovereignty of Hong Kong. The Pan-Democrats always say that even under the dominion of China, we can still fight for democracy, but we can’t. The Electoral Affairs Commission deprived so many pro-independence candidates of their right to run in an election, this precisely shows that under the grip of China, you Hongkongers would absolutely not be able to call the shots.

Democracy is just self-governance, self-determination. Yet under the oppression of China, it can never be achieved by Hongkongers. Why we have to declare independence, is because we have to take back our sovereignty, before we can control our destiny. Many people say that “peaceful, rational, non-violent, non-profane” assemblies are useless, but I disagree, because this is the first time the idea of Hong Kong Independence is openly promoted to all Hongkongers in such a public manner and in such a large scale. Today is just a forum, a rally at this Tamar Park, a venue where we can exchange ideas. But I hope that in the future, in the foreseeable future, we can return to this place, not for another rally, but for every citizen to gather around and make our own Hong Kong’s Tennis Court Oath! Thank you everyone.

大家好,我係香港民族黨嘅發言人!咁我上次禮拜五集會講錯咗召集人,咁今次講返啱啦,我係發言人,係嘞。咁我叫周浩輝,咁今日就有一個咁大型嘅和平集會啦,好多人對和平集會都有一個厭惡,或者係一個質疑啦,咁因為泛民主派過去十九年都係玩爛咗呢一個和平集會。其實suppose和平集會係for積聚呢一個人流啦,然後就等一個爆發點,然後就係有一啲街頭抗爭,或者係一個反政府嘅行動,咁但係泛民主派過往就係喺民怨最沸騰或者最激昂嘅時候呢,就同大家講「請沿著呢一個維園啦,譬如維園嘅話嘞,請沿著邊一度嘅出口就離開,跟住返屋企」咁樣樣。咁就令到好多好好嘅機會呢,都無機會爆發咁樣樣。

咁呀今日喺正式我想講啲嘢之前,我就講下我哋民族黨嘅一啲宣傳品嘅,咁我相信大家嚟嘅時候呢,喺天橋呢,姐金鐘嗰邊姐海富天橋啦,都會收到份文宣嘅,咁上面呢寫住獨立!跟住一個感嘆號。咁究竟呢份嘢講咩呢,咁你有揸喺手你可以宜家舉高啦,姐係去睇下啦,其實入面就係寫住好多香港人或者係好多一般嘅市民都質疑嘅一樣嘢,究竟香港可以點樣獨立,或者,點解香港係有能力成為一個獨立嘅主權國家。佢哋好鍾意講嘅,「喂宜家獨立咁香港冇水飲喎,餓死你班廢青啦」,咁其實唔係嘅,咁,香港其實有好多,姐糧食方面係唔係依賴中國嘅,中國其實係第一大嘅糧食進口國嚟,水方面其實新加坡係用緊海水化淡。咁香港亦都可以仿效。

咁軍隊方面好多人就話會出解放軍屠城,咁,咁九二八都無出解放軍啦,淨係出咗啲警察姐,咁點解佢唔出解放軍係好重要,因為香港呢一撻地方係收埋咗習近平及其親屬同埋呢一個中共高層好多資金、資產喺香港,作為一個資產轉移之用啦,咁樣。咁所以,話解放軍係會出動然後係鎮壓香港,呢個係一個匪夷所思啦,我亦都唔相信呢樣嘢會發生。

咁軍隊方面好多人就話會出解放軍屠城,咁,咁九二八都無出解放軍啦,淨係出咗啲警察姐,咁點解佢唔出解放軍係好重要,因為香港呢一撻地方係收埋咗習近平及其親屬同埋呢一個中共高層好多資金、資產喺香港,作為一個資產轉移之用啦,咁樣。咁所以,話解放軍係會出動然後係鎮壓香港,呢個係一個匪夷所思啦,我亦都唔相信呢樣嘢會發生。

其實姐隔離嘅解放軍軍營呢,大家唔好以為住著嗰啲,姐皮膚黝黑呀,好健碩嘅解放軍,其實嚟得香港做駐軍嘅呢,全部都係靠關係疏通嘅,因為喺香港做駐軍呢,就好正嘅,呀,唔使咁辛苦嘅。咁所以解放軍係咪一個香港人應該恐懼嘅對象,或者係香港人係要突破嘅一個心魔,其實唔係。香港點解咁多年都唔能夠係喺呢個叫政治上做突破,係因為香港人其實面對最大嘅心魔就係自己。因為香港人無勇氣係去面對著心裡面嗰份恐懼,覺得凸個頭出嚟就會俾人鎮壓,或者係會俾人抄家,呢一份恐懼係嚟自一九八九年六四,老一輩親眼喺電視機又好,或者喺北京嘅現場都好,目睹嘅坦克屠城、解放軍屠城,所導致嘅,咁樣樣。咁呀,當然講返啲香港能夠獨立嘅條件啦,正式開始我想講嘅嘢。

其實香港人好多苦難嘅,十九年間,啊。一九九七年主權移交之後香港人,由開初話想爭取呢一個政治權利,去到今日,大家為著你哋自己最基本、最基本嘅生存空間,喺度掙扎奮鬥。我哋今日面對嘅,好多香港人面對嘅唔單單係無咗政治權利,或者無最基本嘅自由,而係連你哋最基本嘅生存都受到威脅。你哋香港人非常之難,搵一個租所去住啦,甚至係你哋死左之後呢,你哋嘅龕位呢,都係一龕難求嘅。姐係香港人係連死呀,都係十分之困難嘅。可想而知你話喺香港生存係更加困難嘅一樣嘢。

咁究竟係啲乜嘢係令到香港人,喺呢十九年間痛不欲生,由初初只不過係追求呢一個民主自由,去到今日要為自己最基本嘅生存權利同埋空間係去奮鬥,就係因為一九九七年,嘅嗰一個夜晚,香港人、香港唔係選擇咗一個獨立自強嘅道路,而係選擇咗,或者,唔係你哋選擇啦,係有一班所謂嘅知識分子啦,所謂嘅精英啦,係去越俎代庖,幫你哋咁多香港人選擇咗,幫你哋香港人嘅下一代選擇咗,要所謂回歸中國,佢哋覺得民主回歸,係一個正確嘅事,係民主回歸先至係正確,係大義所在,結果今日嘅香港人,包括我哋呢一代,同埋呢一代以後啦,都要承受呢一種嘅惡果,都要為著自己最基本嘅生存嘅權利同埋自由,係去掙扎。

其實我想講就係,香港人其實係絕對有能力,係去自己管治自己嘅。我相信香港人係有咁樣嘅能力,係去創造一個幸福嘅社會,我亦都相信香港人,係有咁樣嘅能力喺國際之間,係能夠出埠,係可以同歐美先進國家,可以同日本呢啲咁好嘅國家,係鼎足而立。但點解今日嘅香港人要淪落到一個地步,就係話一場立法會嘅選舉,「啊,好擔心入唔入到閘,入到閘,我就要慶祝一番」,會淪落到咁呢?好多人話香港嘅問題,其實香港嘅問題,香港一路都冇問題,所有嘅問題都係中國人嘅問題,因為中國先至係問題嘅所在,中國政府先係問題嘅所在,唔係香港人你哋。

香港人虛耗嘅時間其實係太多喇。因為呢十九年間,你哋,係無做過嘢嘅。冇做過嘢嘅意思就係,你哋十九年間都係做著一啲和理非非嘅一個嘅集會,而和理非非嘅集會唔係有問題,個本質係冇問題,但你哋從和理非非嘅集會,從泛民組織嘅集會嗰度,係得唔到任何嘢,你哋亦都冇喺香港淪陷嘅嗰一刻,開始組織反抗嘅力量,呢個先係問題嘅所在。香港人你哋起步得太遲喇,你哋要急起直追。好多人話「嘩,你搞呢個香港獨立,搞港獨,你點樣搞啊」或者話呀,香港人,姐我哋講㗎,「港豬點會理你哋呀,佢哋仲要返工」,我想講嘅係,其實每一個香港人,係推動香港獨立,呢個目標上面,都可以有自己角色,都可以有自己能夠做到嘅嘢,好似呀羊子啱啱咁講,如果你係中產嘅,你咪盡你最基本嘅能力,做呢個叫金主或者後援嘅角色囉;如果你係搞IT嘅,呀,咁你咪去幫呢一個叫做獨派嘅組織,係去做website囉,係咪?

我相信香港社會,任何一個人,喺推動香港獨立呢一個議程上面,都有佢嘅角色,都有佢嘅能力,都可以有佢嘅貢獻。好多人話,「啊,革命一定係要嗰當下就要爆發,一定係要揸著槍,然後就係同呢個警察衝突呀,或者係掟磚」咁樣。革命,係一場一瞬間嘅情感爆發,更加係一場理性,同埋計算嘅一個鋪排。孫中山佢搞中國嘅革命,佢搞咗足足十一次,第十一次先成功,而第十一次成功嗰一次,辛亥革命,佢只不過係符碌,湖北嘅駐軍調咗去四川。但係,如果無孫中山,或者黃興一班咁樣嘅興中會,係去不停喺南洋播道呢一個中國革命,或者係做一個思想傳播嘅工作,革命係唔會發生。

而香港人,宜家要做嘅,除咗係要慢慢等待嗰場嘅革命嘅爆發之外,更加要係革命爆發呢一段長久、鬱悶、屈躁難耐嘅一段等待嘅時間去做嘢,做嘅嘢就係思想嘅傳播。係去同你嘅同學講,同你嘅父母講,同你嘅朋友講,點解香港去到呢一刻一定要獨立,點解香港獨立先至係所有香港人嘅出路。香港獨立呢條路可能好艱難,但望下你身邊嘅香港人,望下你身邊熟悉嘅面孔,喺香港獨立呢一個目標或者進程上面,你會有你嘅支持。

十九年間,泛民主派喺和平集會向香港人講好多民主嘅理念,但有幾多人知道民主究竟係啲咩?泛民主派對於民主有一套演繹,建制派對民主又有第二種嘅扭曲,但我認為嘅民主,係有兩個概念,第一:民,係指香港民族;第二:主,係指香港嘅主權。泛民主派經常話喺呢個中國嘅殖民統治之下,我哋可以爭取到民主,但我哋唔可以。因為今次選管會剝奪咁多位主張香港獨立候選人嘅參選權利,就正正證明咗喺香港,喺中國嘅殖民統治之下,你哋香港人係絕對唔能夠自己話事。

民主就係自己管理自己,自己決定自己嘅命運,但喺中國嘅殖民統治之下,呢一點係香港人永遠都無可能做得到。點解要獨立,就係因為香港人,要掌握自己嘅主權,先至可以掌握到自己嘅命運。今日呢度好多人話和理非非無用,但我唔認同,因為香港獨立呢個理念,係第一次咁公開、咁大型,向全香港人傳播。香港人喺未來嘅路上,我好希望,姐今日呢,就只不過係添馬公園呢度,係做一個演講啦,或者係一個集會啦,大家可以交流啦,我好希望就係,喺不久嘅將來,喺可見嘅將來,大家可以一齊重來呢個地方,並唔係再為咗再一次舉行呢個集會,而係到時我哋全香港嘅人可以聚集喺呢度,發表我哋香港自己嘅網球場宣言!多謝各位。

Monday, 8 August 2016

[5 Aug 2016 Rally] Nakade Hitsujiko: Support Diplomacy by Nationals, Collude with Foreign Forces

Nakade Hitsujiko's Speech on Hong Kong National Party - “Defend for Democracy, Hong Kong Independence” Rally
Transcribed by IRay; translated by Sidney, Marco, Timothy, edited by Chen-t'ang , spoken by Nakade Hitsujiko
[ The English translation is released under Creative Commons, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ]
(Source: Undergrad, HKUSU Instant News)
So! Just a moment ago, I was still working on my speech over there in that seat. Why? Things just happened too quickly. Besides, I just pulled myself away from thinking about the election, and I was thinking about what to do next. And then I was invited to this assembly. I thought there might be just a few thousand people, but... Holy Shit! Look at this fucking crowd here! Right. So, this is how I begin my speech, you all know my style, I’m not a big fan for solemnity, you may even say my style is a bit comedic, whatever you call it... I was a bit worried that it would be out of place on this stage, but thanks to James Chan, he set up a light atmosphere for the stage and my worries were much relieved. Thank you. Also, I want to thank the Hong Kong National Party. Although there were some technical difficulties, the event is nonetheless running quite smoothly. By the way, let me help you next time, I can definitely help you with the technical stuff. Thirdly, I want to thank everyone who nominated me in the New Territories West Geographical Constituency. I can’t stand for the election in this round, but no matter, we will definitely have a go next time. I would also like to thank my benefactors online who gave me the fund necessary for this election game. I'm really grateful. So, let me hijack this stage to express my gratitude. Right.

As you can see, I'm not so good at making speeches. One might say, “Wait a minute, Nakade Hitsujiko. You can't be *that* bad at public speaking! You have so much to say on Facebook, your posts attract so many likes, you’ve certainly mastered the art of bullshitting.” But in fact, if you look at the edit history of my posts, you’ll see that there are a lot of edits, copy-and-pastes, deletions and redactions, with at least a dozen or two revisions. So you see, I am not good at speaking. I hope you will understand that.

People ask me, “Hey, Nakade Hitsujiko, are you crazy?” Am I? (crowd: yes!) So, what does this mean? Am I crazy or not? (crowd: YES!) In my opinion, if you had to ask me this question, I’m really more normal than you. I am just doing the most hyper-normal thing in an era of insanity. Right. But history is very unforgiving. If you win, you’re “normal”. If you lose, you are crazy. But I will tell you this: I will show you all, I will defin-fucking-itely win! I will prove it to you all, all those who think I’m crazy, *you’re* the crazy ones.

So, the screening of election candidates is not only an insult to the five of us, it is also an insult to each and every voter in Hong Kong, especially the ones voting for me. Because I know if I were able to stand for election, I will abso-fucking-lutely win. How many supporters do I have? Come on, think about it.

How many voters do I have? Come on — marijuana legalization, I’m advocating for marijuana legalization for god’s sake! I am calling for the legalization of erotic establishments, of live shows and of hardcore porn, being in line with the Japanese standards— just think about how many are dreaming for this? And then, fuck you, you tell me I can’t stand for election. This is not only an insult to me, this is also an insult to hundreds of thousands of voters who are going to vote for me. This is an extensive insult to a lot of voters in Hong Kong. I know that a lot of people want to vote for me, but unfortunately you don’t have a chance this time. No matter, you’ll have a chance next time. Because you can see that they are idiots without even looking, of course we will have a re-election, jeez! The question is *when* — is it one year, two years or three years? It’s just a matter of time. Don’t worry, we will be able to stand for re-election. About this incident, I was a bit surprised at first, it is within my expectation but at the same time out of it as well. What I expected was that they would ban me from running the election. What I didn’t expect was that I was still banned even though I gave them a convenient excuse to back down. Come on, amending the basic law to make Hong Kong Special… no, no. Requesting the National People's Congress (NPC) to pass a new bill to launch the legal boundaries of HKSAR onto the moon. Thus creating a lacuna in Hong Kong’s sovereignty. Thus becomes a basis towards national independence. Or, they could have just amended the first article of the Basic Law. I gave them a convenient excuse to let me run for the election, they can then avoid judicial review and all that crap. If I win even more votes in the re-election, you’ll just end up with more embarrassment. But you didn’t take my offer. So stupid.

So, I don’t have none of those anger, sadness, or proclamations like “the darkest day”. I have none of that. Because the whole farce is good for us. Especially for my original proposal, in addition to legalising marijuana, legalizing erotic shows, etc., the keystone in my election platform for this year is “Diplomacy by Nationals”, to confirm the de-facto independence of Hong Kong. And then, we’ll invite America, and representatives of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and the Chinese. We’ll go to Beijing together, we’ll bring along the US military to Beijing. “If the Americans aren’t here yet, I’ll invite them; If the Americans are already here, I’ll lead the way.” In Beijing, the three parties: Hong Kong, China and US will hold three-party talks on the prospect of the sovereignty of Hong Kong. However, I’m afraid this cannot be achieved in my first term of office. But, why am I advocating this? Actually, Hong Kong people are too afraid to think outside the box. All these years we have tried to solve our problems internally, but hey, it has been so many years already!! It’s time for some new ideas. We’ve been working on solving the problems internally as always — “valiant defiance”1, or resisting with whatever method. But, can we have some innovation already? Can’t we “collude with foreign forces”? You fucktards always claim the anti-establishment is “colluding with foreign forces”, those lapdog officials. Very well, if we’re going to be accused of “colluding with foreign forces” anyway, if you’re going to call us “running dogs of America” whatever, why can’t we do it once for real? Right. Really. Collude with foreign forces, and redistribute the interests in Hong Kong. Let us split the profits of “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau”, and those damn things, like the third airport runway, the “high-speed” railway, those engineering projects. At least we shouldn’t let the profits go only to the China State Construction company. Why don’t we let the profits go to the Americans? Why not the Japanese? Fuck that shit. Those (Chinese) projects run over-budget and over-time, if we give them to others, so what? Those rotten projects, I don’t know, I don’t know if they would explode, damn! So that’s it, collude with foreign forces, and redistribute the interests in Hong Kong. But now, I won’t be able to form a delegation and lead them on a diplomatic mission with the three parties, I won’t be able to do this in the first term. So, I was saying, I was drafting some documents, planning to form some delegations, to go to the US embassy to let them know about this, to go to the British Consulate to let them know about this. I hope we can attend a US congressional hearing, and let them know how Hong Kong people have been living for these twenty-something years. Damn that shit, you think they can close the doors and beat us like dogs? You think it is fun? Are you done with it already? They’ve been oppressing us for so fucking many years, aren’t you going to come out and shout for help? Of course we will seek out the Americans! Hong Kong is not only about China, not only about Hong Kong people, it is also about Americans. There are so many interests at stake here, and a lot of them are not controlled by the mainlanders. Of course, in the end, we, Hongkongers, are the ones calling the shots, but we can benefit from outside assistance, to conduct international negotiations. Regarding this incident about Registration and Electoral Office [sic], it’s already a subversion of the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, it’s even possible that this was an order from Beijing. This is already a very convincing argument, to allow us to facilitate this round of “diplomacy by nationals”, to request foreign forces to be concerned about and to intervene in the future of Hong Kong, and ultimately allow Hong Kong to build its own nation and become independent.

Maybe you’ll ask, hey, why am I standing here? Seriously, I don’t know how to speak, and I really fucking hate politics, I don’t have what it takes to play with politics. But, I was working in the Information Technology sector, come on! I’m still doing IT now, I like interfacing with machines more than humans. Who wants to deal with those fucktards over there (Central Government Complex) at the back? But why have I taken this step? Because there’s no future. Why? In 2047, the sovereignty limitation will make us… So let’s take IT for example. What is IT in Hong Kong? What are they doing over there at Google? They have a lot of hackers, they are researching and developing new network technologies. Damn it! What is IT in Hong Kong? Customer service! Deployment! And what else? (Crowd: IT dog!) Yes, IT dog. Hey come on, Hong Kong people are so fucking smart, our ancestors and elders, they swam here by clinging onto a basketball, they faced guns and bullets in war and turmoil, those who should be dead are dead already. Hey, after this screening process, we have superior genes, the most intelligent people in the whole world are in Hong Kong. And what else? “Bi-literacy and Tri-lingualism”. Damn you, you want me to do customer service, to do deployment? That’s why, I don’t want to get involved in politics, but in order to have a better career and a better future for myself, what do I need to do? I have to fix this machine. What does this entail? If you can’t fix it on a high level, you drill deeper down to fix the fundamentals. In the end I realised the fundamental problem is that Hong Kong people cannot see their future. I’ve come here, not to proclaim the darkest hour in our history. I’m here to win, I’m here to create a future that you can all look up to and aspire to.

So, thanks to the returning officers: you validated us by shutting us out. If you didn’t shut out these five candidates, including me, then I would be wondering “shit, have I tread on the wrong path?” So, today, I thank you very much.

Hong Kong. I may look crazy to some of you, but I think this place is sometimes even more crazy. Why? Hey, these four characters are so beautiful. Just look at how beautiful they are. Why do our students have to learn those crippled (simplified) characters? They look as if they’re falling apart, like it’s crumbled and fractured. Today our teachers, we should pay our teachers well, to teach them what orthodox Chinese characters are, what Cantonese is, come on. This is what I mean by crazy, sigh.

Also, three hundred billion US dollars in the foreign currency reserve, it’s enough to allow every Hong Kong person to live decently, don’t have to work, just sunbathe on the beach every day, and hire prostitutes and drink every night. You want us to slave away at a HK$9000 or HK$10,000/month job? And live in a subdivided room that rents for five or six thousand? Are you ill? Are you crazy? When a person in society, how do I put it? If they don’t want to face the fact that the system is crazy, they would just place crazy responsibilities, fucking blame… blame it on us. Right, blame it on those who look most normal on surface. But this is no big deal, I will win, to let them know it is they who are crazy. I will fix this machine.

We want Hong Kong to build its own nation and become independent. Not only become independent, this is too easy. How hard can Hong Kong Independence be?! I’ll show you how to do it. We want to build the Hong Kong nation and achieve independence, not only independence. We want “if you need money, we’ll give you money; if you need land, we’ll give you land; if you need women, we’ll give you women”! We will become the Hong Kong Empire.

So, time is almost up, I thought I couldn’t finish everything. In these twenty years, the Communist Party, the life they gave Hong Kong people, it’s already — it’s really hard to talk about it. If you ask me, it’s just common sense. Hey come on, promoting Hong Kong independence and nation building is just common sense! Why do you want me to explain it, come on! Sometimes when I’m promoting my cause on the street booths, I feel sad while talking about it, it’s really hard to talk about it. (to organisers) Tell me when I have 3 minutes left. But, Hong Kong is such an easy place to govern, and they fail at it, they give us such a life, they really deserve to be damned. In these twenty years, hey how hard is it to govern Hong Kong people? Give them a job, they will stay out of trouble, just give them a good chance of upward mobility, just have the government departments pretend to be fair, just like that. And what else? Give them some entertainment. Huh, I’ve been providing a whole lot of entertainment to you already, of course. Hey, good governance is as simple as this. So, after Hong Kong builds its nation and becomes independent, if I join the interim government, or if I become one of the royalty, I’m going to be very happy. Because Hong Kong people are really easy to govern, it’s just that they suck at governance, they’re fucking dickheads.

Look, sometimes I’m depressed as well. I sometimes wonder whether I should emigrate and leave this place. To Canada, or wherever. But then I think: I’m such a genius, if I don’t fix things here, I will… how do I put it? This problem, it’s only us who can fix it. Only we can spark off this revolution of a new era. If I left this place, what about you? What about all of you? So, even though I can leave at any time, I won’t. I will stay here until the final moment. I will fight against them, night after night, day after day. Why, because, look at this armband, it’s not a prefect badge, I’m not a prefect of the “Occupy Central Movement”. What is this? The Hong Kong Royal Family. I originally intended to wear this when campaigning in the election. But I’m showing this off for the first time, because I don’t have a street booth anymore. I hereby proclaim solemnly: I, Nakade Hitsujiko, am a member of the Hong Kong Royal Family. The dignity of my subjects here, is also a matter of my personal dignity. I won’t leave, ever. I will stay here, until I succeed. I’m also giving a final warning to the Beijing government, to Mr. Xi Jinping: Hong Kong national building and independence is our historical destiny, we will definitely become neighbouring countries. But will we be friendly states or hostile states? You choose! This choice is not ours. I hope Beijing’s central committee, the party central committee of our neighbour, I hope they can be pragmatic. China’s economy is about to explode, watch out! Whether we will bring along Americans and subjugate you, or whether we will bring five hundred city-state officers to the Great Hall of the People and talk about our great Chinese traditions over a few rounds of Tsingtao beer, I’ll let them decide.

Finally, how many people are here, I can’t count them all. So many Hong Kong nationals-to-be, this revolution of the era, it’s not only me, it’s not only the responsibilities of the pro-independence, or pan-nation-building candidates. Every single one of us in Hong Kong can do what needs to be done in their own position. For example, oh you’re good at making money, please make more money, and donate to us. Whatever. The Chinese economy is going to explode soon, rent will go down, buy a factory, prepare to revive the manufacturing industries in Hong Kong. As for daily life, we don’t need to use citizens… although we, according to the City-State Theory, we are citizens, and we are also an autonomous city state. We are citizens and we are nationals. But at these times, we have an even pressing need to start from our daily lives… hey! Let’s change our vocabulary a bit. All you nationals of Hong Kong, I greet you! Look, these small things, they can be a… nobody told you to charge and fight every single time, come on. Exhaust all options that are within your abilities, do what you ought to do. Hong Kong people should hold steady onto their own positions, to complete this revolution of our era. We will definitely be successful. It may seem dark now, but, I hope they, how do I put it? We won’t be afraid of darker times. Let the storm rage ever stronger! Hong Kong should have the audacity to become a member of the nobility. Show them our courage! Hey, don’t just complain it’s “dark” every day, to hell with “we are eggs and they are the high wall”. What the hell! Fuck it, we are bricks! We will hit you and you’ll collapse, can’t we do that? Give yourself a fearsome spirit!

Look! Finally! I have some advice for all those who oppose Hong Kong nation building and independence: today, we’re going to strive for independence, and we’re not going to ask your bloody opinion about it! You only have two options. What are they? It’s a given that Hong Kong will be established as a nation and become independent. You can either pack up and go back to the “Strong Country” in the north, to gleam in the glamour of being a Chinese national -- the most unwelcome tourist, those contaminated milk powder scandals, comprehensive systems of laws, selfless one-party systems, those things we’ll just leave it to you people to experience, and it won’t be me who will suffer! Or, you can repent, believe in localism, become a Hong Kong citizen again, and prepare to become a national of Hong Kong!

Those who support Hong Kong nation building and independence will be blessed, and their sins forgiven. There are various gods and buddhas who will bless this epic event of the century. Those who dare obstruct it will be damned. They will burn in hell! Those who oppose independence, or those who supported the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, I’m now giving you a chance to repent! Look, I’ll tell you a funny story. One day, when I was standing beside a street booth, a man came over and knelt before me, he said I’m a member of the royalty, so he knelt in front of me, he wanted to kill me with shame… (please give me one more minute). But he didn’t know that I will proudly accept his adoration. Kneel! Revere me! You will be blessed and your sins forgiven! All of you who allowed the transfer of sovereignty to happen in 1997, I’m now giving you a chance to repent, and to become a Hongkonger again. Now is your chance to relieve your sins, and avoid burning in hell, and instead bathe in the glory of being a Hongkonger.

Lastly… Build the Hong Kong nation, become independent! Build the Hong Kong nation, become independent! Build the Hong Kong nation, become independent!

Going forward, I will conduct “diplomacy by nationals” though a massive operation to collude with foreign forces. Stay tuned for more information on my Facebook. Thank you!

===

1. Hong Kong Columns (Translated) usually translate 勇武抗爭 as valorous confrontation.
(Title given by editor)
(Nakade Hitsujiko, née Terry Chung Ming-lun. It is believed that he changed his name in 2015.)

嗱!我頭先坐喺嗰個位嗰度,仲喺度揼緊份稿,點解呢?啲嘢嚟得太快啦。而且,都係啱啱喺個籌備選舉嘅氣氛之中,啱啱將個腦換返過嚟。而且我亦都一路喺度準備緊我啲嚟緊嘅跟進嘅工作,咁就無端端有個集會啦。咁最初以為幾千人,吖頂你個肺!咁撚墟冚嘅!係囉。咁開頭亦都好,因為你知我一路嘅風格都唔係咁嚴肅啊,咁樣或者叫嬉笑怒罵又咁,唔知點形容啦。咁但係一路就好驚自己嘅風格會唔會同呢個台,今次嘅活動好格格不入呢?咁都感謝第一,感謝啊陳國強,將個氣氛就輕鬆咗好多。我真係心理障礙掃除咗好多。好,感謝你。另外,亦都感謝香港民族黨。雖然有啲技術上問題,但係已經搞得好好。咁,有咩下次搵我幫忙,技術上面嘅嘢我實幫到手。咁第三,好多謝所有提名過我嘅新界西選民。我無辦法喺呢一輪裡面去出戰,去俾你地去投。唔緊要,將來一定會有機會。亦都好多謝我一眾嘅,網絡嘅上面課金俾我去玩呢一個嘅選舉遊戲嘅金主,好多謝你地。呢個,騎劫呢個台嚟多謝你地先。咁就,係咯。

因為大家睇我好似講嘢好唔叻啦。其實「咦唔係喎,中出羊子你Facebook咁多偉論咁多嘢講,講到-」屌,枝咪向邊㗎?喂喂?「喂!中出羊子,你無理由講嘢咁廢㗎喎。你Facebook啲文咁鬼多like,咁識鳩噏。」其實你睇吓我啲編輯紀錄,就知我每一篇嘢,都係edit、copy-and-paste、刪刪減減,起碼十幾廿個revision。咁我就,唔係好識得講嘢啦。咁就,希望大家都見諒啦。

好多人問:「喂!中出羊子,你係咪痴線㗎呢?」係咪呢?(群眾:係!)啫係點啫?係定唔係啫?(群眾:係!)我覺得,你問得呢句,我正常過你囉。我只不過係喺一個痴線嘅年代,做緊最撚正常嘅嘢,係咯。咁,但係歷史就係好現實嘅。贏嗰個咪正常囉,輸嗰個咪痴線囉。但係,咁我同你講:我一鳩定會贏俾你睇!我會證明俾你睇,你地呢班覺得我係痴線嘅,你地先至係痴線囉。

咁,呢一次嘅篩選,唔單止係對五個候選人嘅一個侮辱,亦都係對每位香港選民嘅侮辱,尤其對我嘅選民嘅侮辱。因為我知道我今次有得選嘅話我一定贏撚梗。幾多支持者啊,大佬?
幾多人想投我啊?喂大佬,大麻合法化,提倡大麻合法化喎!色情表演場,嗰個現場真人色情表演合法化,四仔合法化,尺度與日本並齊,幾撚多人嘅心聲啊?仆你個街,無得選啝。呢個唔單止係對我嘅侮辱,亦都係對香港起碼幾廿萬個準備會投我嘅選民嘅一個嘅侮辱。呢個係牽連甚廣,係侮辱咗好多嘅香港選民。但係,我知道好多人想投我啦,但係今次無機會去俾你投。唔緊要,下次一定有機會㗎。因為呢單嘢一睇就知佢地係戇居㗎,實有得重選嘅,屌!幾時啫嘛,一年半載吖,兩年定三年吖嘛,鬥長命啫嘛而家同你。放心啦一定有得重選。呢單嘢佢地係,我由第一日開始係有少少驚訝囉,啫係既係預算之內,亦係預算之外。預算之內嘅就係,係咯佢地唔俾我選囉。預算之外嘅就係,我俾埋下台階你地俾我選,你地都唔撚俾我選。喂,修改基本法,將香港特-唔係唔係。要求人大制訂一個新嘅法案,將香港特別行政區範圍射上個moon,咁呢啲仲唔係主權真空囉,咪可以建國獨立囉。一係修改基本法第一條,俾埋下台階佢俾我選,唔洗司法覆核乜乜物物。第時我贏得仲多票過你咪仲樣衰。吖,你又唔制喎,真係蠢。

咁,我無嗰啲咩好憤慨啊,悲傷啊,最黑暗一日,無囉。因為成件事對我地有利㗎。尤其我由一開始主張嘅,雖然除咗有主張大麻合法化,情色表演合法化嗰啲嘢啦。咁但係我嘅主軸,今年原本嘅選舉就係叫「國民外交」,確認香港嘅實然獨立。然後,邀請美國同香港中國,香港嘅民選立法會議員代表,同埋中國一齊去北京,帶埋美軍上北京。「美國未嚟,我邀請;美軍來了,我帶路。」去北京,進行一次嘅港,香港、中國、美國嘅三方會談。咁呢個恐怕就無辦法喺嚟緊嘅一屆嘅立法會任期裡面搞得成。但係,我主張嘅嘢,點解我會主張呢個呢?其實,香港人太過故步自封。我地咁多年嚟都係將我地嘅問題嘗試從內部去解決。喂,咁多年啦!俾啲新意吖。內部問題我地一路都有做㗎啦,勇武抗爭,乜乜抗爭咁。但係,可唔可以玩啲新意呢?勾結外國勢力,得唔得呢?你班撚樣,成日鬧人勾結外國勢力,嗰啲咁嘅狗官。好囉,咁橫掂都係俾你鬧勾結外國勢力啊,咩美帝走狗啊,咁點解唔可以勾結一次俾佢睇呢?係囉,真係。勾結結外國勢力,將香港嘅利益重新分配,瓜分佢嗰地港珠澳啊,乜乜柒柒啊,機場三跑啊,高鐵啊,嗰啲建築嘅。唔好益嗰間中國建築先啦,益吓美國佬唔好?益吓日本佬唔好?頂你個肺。嗰啲咁嘅又超資又超時,俾人又點啊豆腐渣。都唔知會,都唔知會唔會爆炸㗎屌!咪係囉,勾結外國勢力,將香港嘅利益重新分配。咁而家,無辦法喺呢一屆嘅任期裡面,去帶領一隊嘅國民外交團隊,去促成呢個香港主權前途嘅三方會談。不過唔緊要,選舉事務處呢鑊係俾咗更加多嘅子彈我地去,更加多嘅理據啊,更加多嘅籌碼,我去做呢一場嚟緊嘅國民外交。所以頭先都提緊我一路仲係度準備緊嘅一啲草擬緊嘅文件啊,組織緊嘅一啲團隊啊,嚟緊去美國領事館反映呢一件事,去英國領事館反映呢一件事。希望可以去到美國國會做一個嘅聽證會,話俾佢地知,我地香港人呢幾廿年係過緊啲咩日子。頂你個肺,關門打狗呀?好好玩呀而家?玩夠未啊?打咗咁撚多年,你唔出嚟嗌救命呀?梗係出去搵美國佬啦。香港唔單止係中國,唔單止係香港人,亦都係美國佬,呢度係好多嘅利益,好多嘅嘢唔到大陸佬話事。當然,最歸根究底,係我地香港人話事。但係,我地都可以得到一啲嘅助力,去進行一個嘅國際嘅談判。就住選舉事務處今次做呢一單嘢,已經係一個一國兩制嘅破壞,甚至可能係北京落嘅指令。呢個已經係一個好好嘅理據,令到我可以提早促成呢一場嘅國民外交,要求外國勢力介入關注香港嘅主權前途,容許香港嘅建國獨立。

可能問,喂,諗返我點解會企喺度呢?其實講真我又唔識講嘢,我真係唔撚鍾意搞政治,我唔係搞政治嘅人材。但係,我本來撈IT㗎大佬!我而家都撈緊IT,對機器開心過對人添,日日對住嗰班吓,後面嗰班撚樣。咁但係香港,點解我會行到呢一步?因為無未來。點解啊?2047,主權嘅一個嘅大限令到我地。以IT界為例,香港嘅IT係咩?人地Google做緊咩啊?好多嘅hacker啊,研發緊新嘅網絡嘅技術啊,最頂尖嘅技術。喂,香港高地價,仲唔係應該發展呢啲咁嘅長期投資啊,高端嘅一啲嘅研發。吖,頂你個肺,香港嘅IT係咩啊?customer service囉,deployment囉。仲有咩話?(群眾:IT狗!)IT狗囉咪。喂大佬啊,香港人咁撚醒,我地嘅祖先長輩,攬住個籃球游水落嚟,喺戰亂之中槍林彈雨,要死嘅都死哂。喂,經過品質篩選,基因優良,全世界最聰明嘅人就喺香港。仲有咩話?兩文三語。頂你個肺,要我地做customer service,做deployment?所以呢,我唔想搞政治,但係為咗我可以有一個比較好嘅事業吖,前途啦,咁我都要點啊?fix返好呢部機器。啫係點啊?高層次嘅地方搞唔掂,一路就修理下層嗰層嘢囉。最後發覺原來個根基就係香港人嘅。我地呢度睇唔到未來,而家我嚟到呢一度,唔係要講啲咩最黑暗歷史。我嚟呢一度係要贏,同埋創造一個俾大家睇到嘅一啲嘅未來。

咁,感謝選舉主任,你對我地嘅封殺係一個嘅認證。如果你唔封殺呢五位候選人,包括我在內,咁我都好驚「仆街喇,係咪行撚錯路呢?」咁今日都好多謝。

香港,我睇落我啲行為好瘋癲但係我覺得有時呢個地方比較瘋癲。點解呀?喂,我地啲字咁靚。你睇吓呢四隻字幾靚。點解要我地啲學生學嗰啲咁嘅殘體字啊?甩皮甩⻣,aam4 aam4 caam4 caam4。今日我地啲老師,高薪請我地嘅老師教佢地咩係正體字,咩係粵語啦大佬。呢啲咪痴線囉。

仲有,三千億美金外匯儲備可以養起我地每一個香港人,日日唔洗撈,日日陽光海灘,晚晚叫雞飲酒。要我地打嗰幾份九千蚊,萬零蚊嘅閪工?租間劏房都要五六千?有無病啊?係咪痴線㗎?
當一個社會嘅人,點講呢?佢地唔願意面對其實個體制係痴線,咁咪將嗰個痴線嘅責任,將個問題歸鳩於喺,歸究於喺我地。係囉,一啲睇落最正常嘅人身上囉。咁但係唔緊要,我會用贏嚟去話俾佢地知佢地先至係痴線。我會整返好呢部機器。

我地要香港建國獨立,唔單止係要港獨咁簡單,呢啲太過簡單喇。港獨有幾難啫?我做俾你睇。香港建國獨立,唔單止係要獨立,更加係要「要錢有錢,要地有地,要女人有女人」!我地要成為一個香港帝國。

嗱,時間差唔多,我以為講唔哂。共產黨呢廿年嚟,俾咗香港人嘅一啲嘅生活,已經-其實好難講㗎。你問我,其實常識講出嚟,喂搞港獨建國係常識嚟㗎嘛!要我點解要講㗎啫大佬?我成日有時喺街站嗰度,講講吓都有啲心傷,好難講。如果淨返三分鐘就提我啦。但係,咁撚易管嘅香港佢地都管唔好,俾我地一啲咁嘅生活,咁佢地抵死吖。廿年嚟,喂香港人有幾易管啫?有份工,安份守己,一個良好嘅上進機會,政府門面又懶係公平咁樣。仲有啲咩啊?得閒有啲娛樂。吓,我為大家提供咗好多娛樂啦當然。喂,咁咪管治到囉。嗱,所以香港建國獨立之後呢,如果我做臨時政府又好,皇室又好呢,我就開心咯。因為香港人其實好易管,係佢地唔識管,佢地笨柒。

嗱,我有時都好心灰意冷。我會諗我係咪應該移民啊,走人啊?去加拿大邊度邊度?但係我心諗,我咁有能力,我都唔喺度搞,我都,點講呢?呢一壇嘢,擺明係得我地搞到嘅,啫係我地去牽動起呢一場嘅時代革命。如果我走咗,你地點算呢?咁,所以我隨時可以走人,但係我唔會,我會喺度玩到最後一刻。我會日以繼夜,夜以繼日,同佢地玩落去。點解?因為,嗱呢個唔係糾察章,我唔係佔中糾察。呢個係咩啊?香港皇室,原本係諗住留返嚟選舉街站用嘅。但係今日首次喺度亮相,因為都無咗選舉街站。我而家喺度做個鄭重聲明:我,中出羊子,係香港皇室成員。呢度嘅國民嘅榮辱,就係我本人嘅榮辱。我唔會走,我會留喺度,直到成功一刻。亦都向北京政府、習近平先生作出一個最後嘅警告:香港嘅建國獨立係歷史嘅必然,我地必定會成為鄰國。但係到底香港同中國之間最終嘅關係,只有兩個可能性:一係盟國、一係敵國,你自己揀!呢個選擇權,唔喺我地呢邊嘅手上,希望北京黨中央,鄰國嘅黨中央可以務實做人。支爆啦,醒醒定定!到底係帶美軍上嚟同你飲罰酒,定還是帶五百個城邦軍曹上嚟人民大會堂同你飲下青島,暢談呢一個華夏歷史文明,交返畀佢地去決定。

最後就係,到底呢度咁多香港人,其實都睇唔到有幾多,咁多香港嘅準國民,呢一場嘅時代革命,唔單只係我,唔單只係呢度咁多位嘅港獨派、或者泛建國派嘅候選人嘅責任,我地每一個人香港都可以喺自己嘅崗位裡面,去做好我地應該做嘅嘢。例如,哦你搵錢好掂嘅,哦搵多啲錢,課金丫,冇所謂。遲啲支爆啦,啲租金下降,買間廠,準備復興香港嘅工業。日常嘅生活,我地可以唔需要用市民啦咁……我地雖然既係……根據城邦論啦,我地既係市民,亦都係一個自治城邦啦,既係市民,亦都係國民。但係喺呢個時候,我地更加需要由日常生活開始,喂!改下啲字眼啦……咁多位香港嘅準國民,大家好!嗱,呢啲一點一滴,咪可以係一個…冇人叫你下下出嚟衝出嚟打咖大佬。用晒所有嘅可能性,喺你能力範圍之內,每個人做好自己嘅本份,香港人堅守自己嘅崗位,去完成呢一場時代革命,我地一定可以成功。呢一個睇落好黑暗,但係,我希望佢地……點講呢?我地唔怕更加黑暗,就讓暴風雨嚟得更加激烈一點,香港人要有作為一個貴族嘅霸氣,畀啲霸氣佢睇,喂!唔好日日黑暗啊,咩我地係雞蛋佢地係高牆,喂!屌,我地係磚頭!掟鳩散你,得唔得?畀啲霸氣自己!

嗱!最後!忠告所有反對香港建國獨立嘅人,今日我地搞港獨,唔撚會問你意見,點解啊?因為當年九七主權移交,同樣冇問過我地呢班後生仔意見!今日搞港獨,搞建國獨立,都唔撚會問你意見!依家佢地只有兩個可能,兩個出路,就係咩呢?香港建國獨立就梗咖啦,一係執定包袱,準備香港建國獨立之後,返去北方強國,感受身為中華民族嘅光輝同埋榮耀,嗰啲咩呢全球最不受歡迎嘅遊客啊、嗰啲三鹿奶粉啊、大頭奶粉啊、健全嘅法制啊、無私嘅黨嘅體制啊呢啲就留返畀佢地受,就輪唔到我!一係懺悔,信本土,回歸為香港人,準備成為香港嘅國民!

支持香港建國獨立係積福除障,香港建國獨立係有諸天神佛保佑嘅一件嘅世紀大事業,凡敢抵擋侵擾,必遭天譴,必落地獄!反對港獨嘅,或者九七年支持過主權移交嘅,而家畀個機會你懺悔!嗱,講啲好好笑嘅嘢,有日有個街站,有個阿叔走埋嚟跪拜我,話我係皇室丫嘛,跪拜我,佢想拜殺我……(畀多一分鐘)……拜殺我。但係點知,我受得起。拜丫!為你積福除障啊!依家就係畀個機會咁多位九七年默許過主權移交嘅香港人去懺悔,回歸成為香港人,依家就係畀個機會你去消除呢一個嘅孽障!不至於落地獄,反得呢個身為香港人嘅榮耀。

最後,香港建國獨立!香港建國獨立!香港建國獨立!嚟緊我仲會有大範圍勾結外國勢力嘅國民外交行動,留意我facebook,多謝各位!