26th April, 2014
To Tolerate Further, Hongkongers Will be Reduced to Animals
The recently reported case of a Chinese tourist defaecating in Mong Kok is not only a news headline. On top of intensifying the conflicts between Hong Kong and China, this also signifies the beginning of the defensive war to preserve Hong Kong’s civilisation. Defaecating in public has nothing to do with cultural differences, it is an animal behaviour and Hongkongers generally do not see it as human culture. Defaecating in public is not even a matter of difference in civilisation level, as Hongkongers see this as a behaviour that is far from being “civilised”. It is not a conflict between Hongkongers and Chinese based on public interest, because Chinese media that are endorsed by the CCP supports the “culture” of Chinese coming to Hong Kong and defaecate in public. This is a struggle between China’s government, officials and people, and Hong Kong civilisation. Standing on the opposite side of Hongkongers include Hong Kong SAR Government and its officials during this “war of defending civilisation” because Gregory So Kam-leung sides with China and asked Hongkongers to “tolerate” such illegal behaviour. This incident reveals the saddening downfall of Hong Kong’s civilisation.
On Wednesday (23/April) evening, the “Instant News” of Apple Daily reported that Chinese (PRC) netizens launched a campaign calling a halt in visiting Hong Kong from 1st June, as a result of the (PRC) Chinese couple helping their child to defaecate in the middle of the street, which was named “bladder gate”. The campaign description says, “we are the consumers, (so) we are God” and have to teach Hongkongers a lesson on the impact on the city of Chinese tourists staying away. Hours after the “stop visiting Hong Kong campaign” was reported, over 200,000 clicks were recorded, and over 900 comments were made, almost all of these comments were words of joy saying that they could only hope that the Chinese keep their word and never visit Hong Kong again, so that Hong Kong can go back to being as it used to be. Sohu, a major search engine in China, started a poll on “bladder gate”, and the results are: 64.65% think that child peeing in the street when needed is understandable and that Hongkongers are biased against Chinese. This confrontation between Hong Kong’s and China’s citizens shows that the society in (mainland) China has drastically changed in the past 20 years. Exactly like as Han Han, a young Chinese author, said in his article: “the environment I live in: the first few decades (the government) taught people to be cruel and struggle, and in the last few decades it has nurtured people’s greed and selfishness… Our elders destroyed our culture, our traditional virtues, the trust between human beings, beliefs and consensus…” Not long ago, some referred to the highly successful Hongkongers who were illegal immigrants coming from China to live in British Hong Kong when they try to legitimise Ms Betty Wong’s case in debates. However, they deliberately left out the fact that these are two different times and the illegal immigrants then and Ms Wong are very different type of people: in the old days Chinese immigrants still held traditional morals and treasured and valued Hong Kong’s rule of law and freedoms. The Chinese coming to Hong Kong nowadays grew up in a society where traditional virtues have been destroyed, and want to come to Hong Kong to get more (of everything) and always see that the world owes them everything. Even Chinese tourists come to Hong Kong to spend money, they genuinely believe that they are the masters and most certainly behave as such, and do not realise that all they do is only trade – not doing Hongkongers any favours.
China’s government mouthpieces of course sided with Chinese public opinion on this matter. Global Times, one of the major mouthpieces of the CCP, published an article in light of “bladder gate” which said that Hongkongers should tolerate Chinese tourists’ defaecation in public, and Hongkongers taking photos of Chinese (defaecating in public) is a group uncivilised behaviour. The overseas edition of People’s Daily also criticised Hongkongers, saying “disregarding other people’s feelings and failing to understand others’ difficulties are certainly not civilised behaviours”. Xinhua News Agency and Beijing Youth Daily even twisted the facts: both claimed that the child in this incident was a girl (in fact the child is a boy) and the parents helped their two year-old child to urinate in the street (the boy actually defaecated), a Hongkonger passerby witnessed the incident and took a picture with his mobile phone. Both publications criticised the videos circulated online as versions that media uploaded to deliberately conceal the facts. The fact is, however, the Hongkonger who took a video and photos of the situation is a photojournalist from Next Media. Based on the video of the photojournalist, Xinhua News Agency’s “truth” was in fact far from it, but more focused on blackening Hong Kong’s name. People’s Daily eventually published an article yesterday (25/April) about the undesirable behaviours of Chinese tourists, but it emphasised that changing such behaviours “takes time”. However, Chinese’ undesirable behaviours are the results of a society which has been “turning human beings into greedy and selfish monsters” for decades.
From such people comes such government mouthpieces (media). From such people comes such government.
Hong Kong is completely different from China. The focus on the mainland problem in Hong Kong at present is being twisted as a direct result of the massive discrepancy between HKSAR Government that leans toward China’s Government, and Hongkongers’ will. Hong Kong citizens celebrate the “stop visiting Hong Kong campaign” that Chinese netizens launched, whist Gregory So – who represents the HKSAR Government and panders to China’s will – called upon Hongkongers to tolerate and understand (Chinese tourists’ undesirable behaviours) and put harmony ahead of everything. Gregory So asked Hongkongers to tolerate Chinese’ illegal public defaecation. Essentially, So is asking Hongkongers to degenerate and fall back to the level before the British Hong Kong times when people do not litter and respect public hygiene, a civilisation which took the British government decades to build. Hongkongers, in fact, have been tolerating Chinese to a level that is almost connivance: when China was poor, Hongkongers supported their relatives and friends in China by sending money and bringing necessities across the broader without a second thought; whenever China is struck by natural disasters, Hongkongers donate lots of money which always ends up in corrupt officials’ pockets – something we also have tolerated. Since sovereignty was handed over to China, Hongkongers’ lives are being progressively oppressed by China and Chinese (influx of Chinese tourists and immigrants) politically, economically and socially, and our livelihood is under tremendous pressure, this too we have tolerated; ICAC – Hong Kong’s anti-corruption watchdog – turned a blind eye to the suspected corruption cases involving Chinese SOEs in Hong Kong, which have completely turned corruption-free Hong Kong inside-out, still we are tolerant; Hong Kong’s world-class systems (likely to be referring to the legal system) are being altered due to the pressure of China, we tolerate it. Hong Kong media are going to Peking to receive political missions from China’s officials now, are we still to be tolerant? From the China government at the top, to the people in China, all they do is to destroy the civilisation Hongkongers have built in the past century. If we are to continue tolerating more and more, Hongkongers will soon be reduced to animals.
Localism blossoms because of all this tolerance. The pressures from China have distorted Hong Kong utterly. As Lu Xun famously said “if one’s shoulder is being hurt one would make a sound”. On 24th April, a commentary published on Apple Daily’s website, “as we face such a disadvantaged situation, is that really necessary to dwell on profound theories? Is defending Hong Kong and the usual livelihood not sufficient enough a reason for you to support local movements?” This sentiment seems to be growing amongst Hongkongers.