10th September 2013
“New Hong Kongers”, You are Not Hong Kongers but Invaders
When I was young, I always challenge myself with philosophical questions, and very often ask myself one question “if today’s ‘me’ is different tomorrow’s ‘me’, is the ‘me’ today and tomorrow the same? ” When I grew a little older, and began to read philosophical books, I realised that this question was discussed by ancient Greek philosophers in Theseus’ Paradox:
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
Philosophies are great topics to be discussed during leisure times, particularly when you are enjoying a some liquor – whether or not there’s a “conclusion”, no harm is done amongst one’s companions. However, when applied to practical politics, the ability to have solutions for such questions could be a matter of life and death to a city.
Communist China is building the Ship of Theseus in Hong Kong. In the original ship, it was wood which were being replaced. In Hong Kong, however, it is the people that is being replaced. It is obvious that the replacement wood planted by Communist China is in low quality, if this ship set sail, it will certain sink.
The Ship of Theseus Communist China is building in Hong Kong is constructed by a new term which all the mouthpieces of China promotes: “New Hong Konger”. Ta Kung Pao said: “Hong Kong needs New Hong Kongers. This is because since Hong Kong was first established over a hundred years ago, it transformed from a fishing village to a modern city, and the transformation relied on immigrants which brought in population and talents. It is the ‘New Hong Kongers’ who drive Hong Kong’s development.” The reason for Communist China’s mouthpiece to emphasise Hong Kong being an “immigration city” is that it is trying to create an illusion and cover up the fact that the types new immigrants before and after 1997 are completely different types of wood. If we do not pay attention to this and fall for the illusion created by Communist China, and allow Communist China to continue the “blood transfusion” (which replaces local Hong Kongers) with these so-called “New Hong Kongers”, Hong Kong as the ship will sink before it reaches anywhere in the world.
Classics of Songs says “Zhou Dynasty was an old nation, but it operated under the overarching concept of ‘new’.” The “new” here refers to a drive that is derived from the old matrix, is an organic development. Hong Kong’s matrix began over 170 years ago when it was first established. Despite the long history, the city-state’s “decree of fate” did not descend until after the handover of sovereignty in 1997. When Hong Kong localism supporters started to realise the fact that Communist China and its people are beyond salvation, they began to rise and the awareness of ethnic identity grows. Hong Kong’s “decree of fate” in fact descends from its long history – a natural and organic development. This fate and Communist China’s colonisation strategy to plum in “New Hong Kongers” are by nature mutually exclusive.
It is true that the core of Hong Kong’s society is a composite of the “abandoned” who fled from war and tyranny. However, the majority of those who fled to Hong Kong before 1997 had experienced the close escape of the tyranny hence desire for freedoms. These refugees took huge risk to flee to Hong Kong: they did not only leave their families, friends and careers/businesses, but if they failed they could have been severely punished and even their relatives could be at risk. Before these people escaped to Hong Kong, they have made a conscious decision and were betting on their lives and everything they had. Therefore, even if these people only saw Hong Kong as a temporary shelter, they would strive to integrate with the local culture – which eventually constructed the matrix of Hong Kong’s mainstream culture. These people are the quality wood pieces that built Hong Kong.
How about the so-called “New Hong Kongers” labelled by the Communist China’s mouthpieces? Those who are familiar with the history Communist China, anything that is branded as “new” are most certainly bad. Since the Communist Party seized power, they have self-claimed as “New China” and announced that they would build a “New society” in order to wipe out the “old society”. After over 60 years, the “New China” under the Communist’s regime has turned into a society with no moral and integrity, no order and law, and is corrupted from top to bottom. They should be ashamed to proclaim that they are a great and strong country. Besides the geographic location that has been historically labelled as China, there is nothing derived culturally from “China” under the “New China” regime – including system, institutions and regulations. The system and political strategies of this “New China” are all directly from the Soviet. The conclusion is that “New China” is NOT “China” at all.
For the same reason, these “New Hong Kongers” are not related to Hong Kong. They are not Hong Kongers but invaders. The so-called “New Hong Kongers” are the new immigrants who obtained Hong Kong citizenship with their links to their relatives, or via talent schemes or investments after 1997. These people who had been living under a tyranny took advantages of the loopholes in Hong Kong’s civilised and open system, and they were able to come to Hong Kong because of the money they can mobilise, and the power and connections they have. Therefore, they feel no gratitude to Hong Kong’s culture, nor the opportunity to be living in a free society. Behind these new immigrants, there is the “shadow of the massive Communist Empire”. These people and the Hong Kongers and local culture are mutually exclusive in nature. Communist China’s propaganda, however, had to promote them as the same as the old immigrants who came to Hong Kong before 1997 – but this is merely a tactic to confuse the public.
“New Hong Kongers” are not Hong Kongers, and have no relations to Hong Kong whatsoever – they are in fact simply Chinese, locusts, or invaders. Hong Kong, as an international city, has its natural regeneration capabilities. There is no need for the northern tyranny to interfere our natural metabolism. “New Hong Kongers”, please return to your motherland, and stop tarnishing the name of Hong Kong.
To the majority of non-Hong Kongers (even some Hong Kongers), they will find this piece too extreme. However, the editors believe that this article is a good showcase of the growing discontent amongst the local Hong Kongers who are increasingly agitated about the growing population of new immigrants. We believe this can be a good piece for the non locals to see things from the local Hong Kongers’ prospective.