Christina Chan, You’re Right
8th January, 2015
(Author: Hong Kong Columns – Translated); Translated by Chen-t’ang @
When we mention Christina Chan Hau-man, most people will think of her sidetrack gossips on entertainment magazines. Now, as the situation deteriorates, she is now well-acclaimed as if she is an aggrieved prophet. She herself has long been despondent and stayed away from politics. This is the only result of a person who steps much forward the others. She took an arrow and shoot against “Greater China morons”. And now the Snow Lion Banner of Tibet has less and less exposure.
Recently a video clip was uploaded. It was Christina participating in a protest on a tree. I felt sentimental. It was four years ago at night. She was skimpy, as the media described. She was holding a mic, condemning the “go-through-the-motions” formalism of 1st July demonstration. She asked the other protesters to reflect the effectiveness of standing out on streets, and said things that were not much understood at that time. She said, “Should we keep on doing so? We have to think why we are out here. If we do not escalate our action, then staying here will be nothing but a tradition like 1st July demonstration.” I can barely hold back my emotions.
Tempus fugit. A ‘prophet’ is bound to bear such pains. She had to withdraw, long before the Umbrella Revolution, long before people made their own shields and burnt rubbish bins. She, after all, is just an individual. We felt helpless when we saw leftards calling people to “vote and deliberate” in Mong Kok [trying to be leaders in the movement], and now it seems that we can do nothing to those totem-praising, “peaceful, rational, non-violence, non-swearing” (PRNN) “yellow ribbons”. It is not difficult to imagine how much Christina had to bear, especially when she was on her own. She knew she needed to grab the attention from cameras, so she did use many new tactics, making herself on headlines of newspapers. She then became the target on the bull’s eye.
In a calm manner, she said the truth, “Is it useful to do the formality again, just like last year?” Four years have passed, even after the largest scale of occupation in the history of Hong Kong, the majority of Hongkongers still do not understand this truth. In the clip, her friends held the gate outside the old Government HQ, and she called for support. Yet, some fake-allies urged all protesters returning to the original position and to sit and wait until they were carried away by the police, and stop blocking the gate. She was clever and daring, and knew the way such fake-allies act. She shouted, “Never retreat and hold our bottom lines!” Yet in the movement against the development of Northeast New Territories in 2014, Raphael Wong, one of the chief fake-allies, was so brazen-faced to say “People did not think so” in front of journalists to halt the kind of charging Christina proposed. All people who think they are fighting for democracy for Hong Kong owes Christina an apology, because we allow people like Raphael Wong to get in our way when he felt excited when protesters were getting arrested.
Also, the forlorn Christina Chan promoted an idea of self-determination, an idea that is still not understood by PRNN yellow-ribbons. From 1997 to 2003, from 2003 to 2010, from 2010 to 2014, we are still thinking the meaning of civil disobedience, and tarrying with legal wordings. Hongkongers have the priority in enjoying resources of Hong Kong, the final say to our population policies, the right to have one-person-one-vote in electing the government – these are still “not accommodating and fair” to many people who think they are rational. The internal affair of Hong Kong is not yet solved, then not to mention how the Communists suppress people in Xinjiang and Tibet.
“Amid such chaotic world, we have our responsibilities …. for stability maintenance/weiwen.” These PRNN yellow-ribbons brandish themselves travelling, and stuck the yellow banner with “I want genuine universal suffrage” wherever they go. But in fact, they have not cherished those pioneers who carry responsibilities at the beginning. And the way they “embrace” democracy is, but, another kind of stability maintenance/weiwen. They do not mind “doing the formality again just like last year”, nor doing origami of yellow paper umbrellas for many hours. They are merely jumping on the wagon, or a kind of Joneses mentality.
She did not join the revolution, nor she exposed herself. The revolution ended, not even smelling a scintilla of gunpowder. At the time, did anyone always bear the idea in mind – that continuous escalation of movement has to be continued everyday more radically than yesterday? No. Few were struggling, but the majority of the protesters were not convinced. Some even said “Policemen are our neighbours, the government is our archenemy”. Eventually people wait, and tally, for an inconclusive end, which was executed by the batons of the so-called law enforcement agency.
So, her thorough withdrawal was right. Her time belongs to her. People in this place do not worth her precious decade to “enlighten” others. She is neither Albert Ho nor Lee Cheuk-yan, she could go to somewhere else and develop herself, and for those twerps who can stay in the political sphere for two decades, you may now be crystal clear about their “true colours”.