Build a Democratic China – Largest Political Scam in Hong Kong’s History

29th April, 2015

VJ Media

Build a Democratic China – Largest Political Scam in Hong Kong’s History

建設民主中國——香港有史以來最大的政治詐騙

By Lewis Loud

Building a democratic China is a lie jointly created and spread by political comprador and academics specialising in spin.

They keep saying that Hong Kong will never be democratic unless a democratic China is built.

There are a few problems with this ideology: Firstly, China’s democratisation does not guarantee Hong Kong’s democratisation. The United Kingdom established a constitutional monarchy without a bloody revolution*. On the one hand, the United Kingdom is the world’s oldest democracy, on the other hand it was the largest colonial power in history, with colonies across Europe and Asia.

Hong Kong is an anomalous form of government within China, similar to Tibet and East Turkestan (Xinjiang). Hence, even if democratisation takes place in China, changes will only happen within its internal politics, and the administration of the Hong Kong-China relationship will continue to be based on China’s own needs and interests, not those of Hong Kong.

In general, Chinese hate Hongkongers (ethnic Chinese Hongkongers only) – as we know by personal experience when encountering Individual Travel Scheme tourists, and from comments one can easily find online. A democratic China will democratically formulate policies toward Hong Kong, in order to utilise and exploit Hong Kong, an anomalous form of government, for a long time. Regardless of the form of government and the leader of the government in China, China’s national interests are always put before Hong Kong’s interests. Hence, we can safely conclude that a democratic China will only exploit Hong Kong, unless Hong Kong has nothing else left to be exploited.

The small group of people in Hong Kong who prate on about building a democratic China have been spreading a fairy tale in Hong Kong: That once China is democratic, Hong Kong can catch a free-ride to democracy. However, the fact remains that a democratisation implemented in the absence of the local majority’s desire for democracy cannot change the fundamental nature of the nation. Even after China becomes democratic, Chinese can still shout at Hongkongers “without us spending money in your tiny place, Hong Kong would have died”**. In a democratic China backdrop, the Chinese government will most certainly refuse to tighten the “Unlimited Entry Visa” system. China will also democratically remove the border between Hong Kong and China (simply put, should this agenda be put under a referendum, with only 7 million votes, Hongkongers voice is easily muffled by that of the 1.3 billion Chinese), so that the 1.3 billion people can smuggle even more freely and at a much lower cost (without immigration and custom control).

Secondly, even if we assume that after China democratises, it will give democracy to Hong Kong and treat Hong Kong nicely. The big question is how can Hongkongers help build a democratic China? Go and ask any ordinary Chinese what they want, the answer is most certainly not going to be democracy. Chinese are content with the idea that China today is at its historical peak of prosperity and strength. If Chinese in general do not seek, value and desire democracy, just exactly who do you think Hongkongers are to have the ability, responsibility, superiority and power to “help” Chinese “build” a democratic China?

Year after year Hongkongers attend the candle-lit vigil on 4/June, organised by Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HK Alliance), and donate to pan-democrats, Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) and Scholarism (two prominent student groups). Do you honestly think any of these “check-ins” and donations can build a democratic China? NO. One major reason is that these vigil organisers cannot even enter China. Their democratic voices can never enter China.

Can singing and chanting slogans in Hong Kong Island help build a democratic China? NO. Can reading statements in a shaking voice help build a democratic China? NO. Everyone must know that none of these is possible. However, HK Alliance and the pan-democrats in Hong Kong insist that their moaning and singing on one particular day every year, for almost three decades, is a powerful challenge targeting China and CCP. They explain that singing karaoke at Victoria Park is a threat that sends a “backyard on fire” message to China. However, hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers still believe these lies that cannot even fool a five-year-old child. HK Alliance claims an annual commemoration event is a powerful pro-democracy struggle against China and the tool to change China. HK Alliance also claims that by changing China (democratisation), Hong Kong can be changed. These claims, without a doubt, are simply 26-year-old lies.

This “democracy in Hong Kong depends on building a democratic China” theory is against any logic. This theory is not about reality and the possibility of success, but about paving a political career that is legitimate, at least on the surface, for the Democratic Party and pan-democrats. Szeto Wah created the pan-democrats because he wanted to set up a supporting power for Zhao Ziyang’s “open-minded-dictatorship” political stance outside of China. However, as Zhao lost his power in the CCP, Szeto was forced to take the “anti-CCP” side. Hong Kong’s pan-democrats are an extension of China’s political power struggle, which takes the resources in Hong Kong to serve the Peking-centred politics in China from afar.

This is why pan-democrats do not utter a word, let alone offer support, when Hongkongers are oppressed by smugglers, anchor babies and barbaric Chinese tourists. When Hongkongers have had enough and take matters into their own hands, pan-democrats are always the first to jump out and condemn any action taken against these suppressions and exploitations. Why? Just as Martin Lee said before, pan-democrats are fighting a battle for the 1.3 billion Chinese (in China). Hong Kong is only a host to them, a group of parasites that participate in China’s politics and hope to influence China but live in Hong Kong where they cannot be harmed. Their “customers” are Chinese, not Hongkongers. In fact, the pan-democrats are no different from the notorious CY Leung: they are the lackeys of the colonial master, China. All they care about is the interests of China instead of those of Hong Kong.

Thirdly, the Chow Po-chung (a university professor) led “young mentors” in Hong Kong are promoting exactly the same ideal: Chow said that building a democratic China is not only about self-defence (defending Hong Kong), but also to “demonstrate Hongkongers’ value and historical responsibility”. There is no justification for Chow’s point on “value and historical responsibility”. Why should crying and moaning at Victoria Park once a year and shouting “build a democratic China” be Hongkongers’ value and historical responsibility? There is no justification for this either. Ensuring one’s survival before establishing order and morale, however, is an unarguable golden rule.

In fact, the people who support “pro-Hong Kong being returned to China democratically” – a slogan Szeto Wah, Martin Lee and his followers use, despite public polls showing that at least 80% of Hongkongers would have preferred Hong Kong to remain a British colony – including Chow Po-chung, force the “responsibility” for building a democratic China onto Hongkongers because of their own “ethnic identity” (identifying themselves as Chinese instead of Hongkongers). The most shameful thing, however, is that HK Alliance, Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union and Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (all founded by Szeto Wah) never take action to build a democratic China on-the-ground in China, but instead they stay in Hong Kong (a relatively safe and free place compared to China) but do nothing to build a democratic Hong Kong. On the contrary, they led the trend to support the government’s political reform proposal in 2011 which was a massive step backwards in the democratic progress of Hong Kong. For making humbly-worded requests, for example: to reduce the number of Individual Travel Scheme permits – which pose a significant threat to Hongkongers’ livelihood and way of living – pan-democrats and HKFS condemn Hongkongers for being violent, immoral and racist. Developing Hong Kong is not only the last on their agenda, if it ever featured, to them it is their top priority to stop Hongkongers from developing Hong Kong.

Sitting, moaning and shouting slogans at Victoria Park every year on a particular day, will most certainly not help build a democratic China. However, Chow Po-chung and his allies continue twisting and spinning the truth and influence the public with their “holly” academic status, making the impossible sound very possible. University students naively believe in their lies and follow their agenda. Preaching what is simply impossible is hypocritical. They would never cross the border to build a democratic China (which they have harped on about for decades), but instead preach that what they do can save China: this is arrogance.

Chow Po-chung’s Facebook Status:

Democracy is a system that we should pursue because it offers all citizens equal rights to participate in politics. This is why we hope to build a democratic Hong Kong. We want to build a democratic China not only because we know that as long as China is not democratic, under the one-country-two-systems, it will be very difficult for Hong Kong to have democracy, but also because over 1 billion Chinese will be living in a one-party autocracy and suffer from all sorts of inequalities as long as China is not democratic. More importantly, China continues to grow stronger, but a non-democratic China brings very negative impact to the world which will subsequently hinder the development of the human race. Therefore, to strive to build a democratic China is not only a matter of self-defence but also demonstrates (to the world) the value and historical responsibility of Hongkongers. To give up such responsibility would be degrading and belittling.

Chow Po-chung and his fellow believers and followers are a bunch of unrealistic and self-important people. To simply reduce the number of Chinese smugglers, Hongkongers had to take it to the streets for months and years. As Hong Kong’s situation continues to worsen, Chow and Co. would switch the focus onto building a democratic China. How hypocritical is that? Hongkongers cannot even look after their own land without having to resort to protesting and confronting smugglers – who the police side with – risking being arrested and having criminal records. When they finally come up with a plan to build a democratic China, then it would make more sense for them preach the idea of “a democratic China, is the only way for Hong Kong to preserve its democracy and freedom”. They obviously know that they cannot achieve this “goal” hence have not taken any action for over two decades, but they still preach this idea. The reason for them to continue spreading the idea of “building a democratic China is the only way out for Hong Kong” even though they knew it is entirely impossible is that 4/June candle light vigil is an event for pan-democrats to fundraise and to gain political power. Therefore, last year when other groups started an alternative event to commemorate the massacre (which stressed reflecting on how Hongkongers can and should fight for democracy in Hong Kong), Lee Cheuk-yan, a veteran pan-democrat, condemned hosting a separate commemoration claiming it would weaken “the power”. Did he mean the power of Hongkongers’ desire for democracy? Or was it the power of their political status and financial power being eroded that worried him?

Even student leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung of Scholarism sided with HK Alliance and challenged localists: “You want to fight against the North? Do you have any firearms? Do you have financial sponsors? If you are not prepared for an armed revolution, the only way to fight against the North is to influence the people in the North by touching their hearts.” Hongkongers cannot even influence and touch the hearts of the police who brutally beat up students during Umbrella Revolution, what hope do we have to influence the 1.3 billion people in China and touch their hearts? Haven’t they overestimated themselves just a tad?

This 4/June, Hongkongers should stop attending the mental opium gathering, because 4/June reminds us all two things:

First: China and the CCP cannot be trusted. HK Alliance and its lackeys led giving up the battle against the Communists in 2011. Their moral high ground as democratic fighters was lost, and they are not qualified to monopolise 4/June, democracy and freedom.

Second: 4/June shows us that being a patriotic China nationalist will only hinder the democratic progression of Hong Kong and harm Hong Kong’s interests. After the 4/June massacre, China was almost isolated internationally. Over a million Hongkongers took it to the street objecting to a brutal regime. The political and opinion leaders failed to take advantage of the situation and negotiate complete autonomy or independence for Hong Kong. To make it worse, Szeto Wah prevented the pan-Hong Kong strike (workers, students and businesses planned a pan-Hong Kong strike), the most powerful campaign, from happening. He successfully protected China from being “targeted” on behalf of the CCP – a party he was a member of – and stopped the localism movement from kicking off. For the interests of China, these so-called activists – Szeto Wah-a-like “democracy fighters” – and pan-democrats in Hong Kong have sacrificed the interests of Hong Kong repeatedly over the past decades. How come so many members of Meeting Point (a political party) have turned to the CCP – including Andrew Fung Wai-kwong who now works for the press office of the HKSAR Government? Simply because the “democracy” they have been fighting for is only a smoke-screen: their true agenda is “be patriotic to China”. The reason for them to side with the Communists is to help build a better China, just with a different approach. Richard Tsoi Yiu-cheong is another who campaigns for Hong Kong SAR to offer all sorts of benefits and aid to Chinese, excluding all other ethnic minorities. They are all doing the same thing with a slightly different focus and approach, but all they do comes directly from HK Alliance’s “China Patriots” and “China Nationalist” ideology.

I cannot stress enough that we need to face reality. Reality makes us see our incompetence and limitations, but reality remains unchanged. Even if the economic situation, environment and life in Hong Kong go down the drain, as long as we can stand firm on the ground and dare to face the cruel realities, we still have the means to fight for the future of Hong Kong. The fantasy (building a democratic China from Hong Kong) is only ever going to be a fantasy, and there are no means to achieve it. After twenty odd years of fantasy, it is time for Hongkongers to wake up and come back to reality, return to Hong Kong and fight the final battle for Hong Kong. It is, after all, about the life and death of our home.

Editor’s Note:

* The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the Peasants Revolt in 1381 and Oliver Cromwell’s creation of the first parliament as we understand it today in 1654 were all bloody – albeit not as concentratedly bloody as the French Revolution which followed in 1789

** “Without us spending money in your tiny place, Hong Kong would have died” is a saying frequently used by Chinese when are asked about Hongkongers’ resentment towards Chinese