On the 26th Anniversary of Tian’anmen Massacre – an Open Letter to Fellow Students in Mainland China

On the 26th Anniversary of Tian’anmen Massacre – an Open Letter to Fellow Students in Mainland China

By a group of overseas Chinese students, letter penned by Gu Yi, published: May 27, 2015

This letter, written in Chinese, has been circulating through email groups and on social media since May 20. Yesterday the Chinese Communist Party-run Global Times gave it a free publicity push – double strength (here and here). – China Change

We are a group of Chinese students born in the 1980s and 1990s and now studying abroad. Twenty-six years ago on June 4th, young students, in life’s prime with innocent love for their country just as we are today, died under the gun of the People’s Liberation Army in Beijing’s streets. This part of history has since been so carefully edited and shielded away that many of us today know very little about it. Currently outside China, we have been able to access photos, videos and news, and listen to the accounts of survivors, unfettered. We feel the aftershocks of this tragedy across the span of a quarter century. The more we know, the more we feel we have a grave responsibility on our shoulders. We are writing you this open letter, fellow college students inside China, to share the truth with you and to expose crimes that have been perpetrated up to this day in connection with the Tian’anmen Massacre in 1989.

Around 9:30 on the night of June 3rd, 1989, gun shots tore the tense streets of Beijing. On that day, troops enforcing martial law opened fire on students and residents who had protested peacefully for nearly two months. The demonstrations were initiated by college students but people from all walks of life participated, numbering over 300,000 at the peak. The center area of the peaceful sit-in was in Tian’anmen Square. It was a time when the nation had been encouraged by the relatively freer and more open political atmosphere throughout the 1980s, people had had trust in the Communist Party and held expectations of a government that called itself “the people’s government.” At a time when economic crisis threatened and corruption worsened, students and residents wanted to have a dialogue with the nation’s leaders to make the country a better place. Never for a moment did the peaceful demonstrators dream that a planned massacre was awaiting them.

Per orders from Deng Xiaping, Li Peng and other Chinese leaders, the PLA forced its way toward Tian’anmen Square to clear out the student occupiers. They drove tanks with machine guns mounted on top, and they shouted “I will not attack if I am not attacked” while opening fire on civilians. On its route at Muxidi (木樨地), several hundreds of unarmed civilians fell in streaming blood shouting “Fascists!”, “Murderers!” Among them was Yan Wen (严文), a 23-year-old mathematics student at Peking University, shot dead by bullets to his thigh. He was there with a camera to record history. Another was the 17-year-old high school student Jiang Jielian (蒋捷连) who had been determined to go to the Square to be with older brothers and older sisters there. 19-year-old Wang Nan (王楠) was yet another who fell, and the bullet-holed helmet he wore is now on display in Hong Kong. The 21-year-old Wu Xiangdong (吴向东)had with him a death notice that read, “For democracy and freedom, for the fate of the nation, every ordinary person has a responsibility.” According to witness accounts, the troops that had entered the Square beat clusters of students with batons even though the two sides had already agreed on the student withdrawal; at Liubukou (六部口), tanks chased, and ran over, a column of students who had left the Square and were walking back to their campuses. Fang Zheng, a senior at Beijing Sports University, lost his legs to speeding tank tracks. There had been unconfirmed reports that pockets of protesters were encircled and executed en mass. Around June 4th, massacres also occurred in Chendu, Sichuan province, and elsewhere.

In mid and late June that year, the government issued three versions of a “report on quashing the riots.” It portrays the civilians as a rioting mob and presents precise numbers of dead and wounded among the troops and the loss of vehicles, but at the same time, it is vague and contradictory on the number of civilian deaths. Questions remain: why were the weaponized troops unable to defend themselves [if there was indeed a riot]? If they were unable to defend themselves, how did they break through the blockade of hundreds and thousands of civilians? What caused the people of the nation to gather in the streets of the capital to prevent the troops from moving forward? The report claims that the civilian deaths were few. If so, why repeatedly alter the number of death and never publish an accurate count? If the report is to be believed, the civilians attacked the soldiers first. If so, why was the first death among soldiers not reported until more than three hours after the troops opened fire and blood bathed Muxidi? During the protest, police once confided to Zhou Fengsuo (周锋锁), one of the student leaders in the Square, that “Beijing’s public order has never been so good” as the last two months of “disruption” and “riot.” According to the memoir of Hou Dejian (侯德健),[the Taiwanese poplar singer] who stayed until the last moment in the Square, students insisted on non-violent principles even at the last moment of forced withdrawal and threw away any possessions that could be used to attack.

Meanwhile, the atrocities of the troops were recorded in photos of bleeding wounded and stacked bodies, videos of shooting civilians, hospitals’ body identification notices and body counts, shocking reportage by Wu Xiaoyong (吴晓镛)of Central People’s Radio Broadcast, not to mention the persistent questioning of Tiananmen Mothers over the last twenty-six years. If all of these are lies as the government claims they are, what is making these parents, now white-headed and frail, seek justice for so many years while sacrificing a normal life?

Last year on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, this writer met with some of the survivors of the massacre. The MC read aloud a partial list of the dead, and people proceeded in a long line to pay respects with flowers. From hundreds to thousands, there have been different numbers and we might never know exactly how many died that year in Beijing. But people witnessed many shocking crimes, and perhaps many more occurred at unknown corners without witnesses. Some witnesses have grown old, others have passed away, and still others dare not speak even though they now live safely overseas. The Chinese government has never dared to publicize the exact number of deaths, and in dealing with a historical event of such magnitude, it first portrayed it, solemnly, as an “anti-revolutionary riot,” and then over the time it downplayed it as a “political ripple,” systematically erasing it from the collective memory of a generation. June 4th has become a “sensitive” time each year, an unmentionable date. Such an enforced taboo is a reverse proof that the atrocities against civilians in 1989 are something the Communist Party would rather keep mum about, although this is a Party with a murderous history of civil war, anti-rightist movements, and the Cultural Revolution.

A classmate of this writer believes that the events from twenty-six years ago are too far back, today’s China is getting better and better, and he lives a very happy life.  As I walked on the Avenue of Eternal Peace two years ago, I saw no trace of blood or bullets but skyscrapers and the bustling of people and cars. We live in prosperity, but what kind of prosperity it is – our imagination is constantly challenged by the astonishing scale of high and low ranking officials, the marriage of power and money that the students opposed twenty-six years ago has become the prevalent model of the state economy. Xi Jinping’s regime waves the banner of anti-corruption, but ordinary people are thrown in jail as trouble makers for holding signs asking officials to disclose their assets.  The clans of Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng, whose hands were stained with the blood of students, have become filthy rich. We are shocked to discover that we are governed by officials whose family members live abroad. In other words, we are ruled by a bunch of foreigners, and China is merely the goose that lays golden eggs for them.

Twenty-six years ago, students wanted freedom of the press; and twenty-six years later, all media are still controlled by the Party’s Propaganda Department, and journalists and lawyers are being put in jail for invented crimes. Gao Yu’s crime was leaking state secrets, or the ruling party’s latest ideological guidelines. Some of my friends are of the opinion that those who draw the Party’s ire do so because they are famous and conspicuous. We, on the other hand, are mere ordinary people who don’t care about politics. But are ordinary people safe from harm? Think about Xia Junfeng (夏俊峰), Xu Chunhe (徐纯合), and the daughter of Tang Hui (唐慧). No one is safe in a dictatorial system.

When North Korean soldiers crossed the border and killed innocent Chinese, and when Burmese bombers bombed Chinese territory, this government merely “protested.” Come to think about it, the PLA’s only military victory in the last thirty years was the bloodbath in Beijing’s streets on June 4th, 1989!

This is fragile and distorted prosperity. Stability maintenance expenses are as big as the military budget; the Great Fire Wall is being stacked ever higher. They all indicate that, at any moment, truth can come to broad daylight, and the prosperity can collapse.

A voice inside China that says, the Tian’anmen Massacre was unfortunate, but the Chinese Communist Party has learned a lesson, and we don’t want to obsess over it. But the suppression has never stopped: the truth about June 4th is still covered up, the dead still do not have closure, some survivors have served long prison terms, Tian’anmen Mothers are prevented by security police from paying visits to their children’s burial sites. Last year, a group of scholars was detained for having a home seminar to remember that day, and a female student at the Beijing International Studies University was disappeared for proposing a technology to spread the truth about the Tian’anmen Movement.

Meanwhile, the man who made the decision to open fire on students and civilians has been admired and extolled as the chief designer [of China’s economic rise], and neither officers nor soldiers who directed the killings have been tried in a court of law. Do not expect this regime to plead guilty. Nor will they confess to errors as they did after the Cultural Revolution ended, because they know all too well that, once they acknowledge their crimes, they will likely be engulfed by the people’s wrath. They claim they have the ownership of a “universal truth,” but they have built high walls on the Intenet, and they hide in dark rooms to delete news as well as comments. Such is their “confidence in guiding theories” and their “confidence in the path chosen.”

This is the killer’s regime. The gun fire on June 4th shot dead their legitimacy, and what they have accomplished since June 4th is not important. We do not ask the CCP to redress the events of that spring as killers are not the ones we turn to to clear the names of the dead, but killers must be tried. We do not forget, nor forgive, until justice is done and the on-going persecution is halted.

This writer and the signers of this letter know very well that there are consequences in writing and signing this letter. But this is our responsibility, and we hope fellow students inside China know this part of history, and reexamine the violence and atrocities since the Communist Party’s beginning in 1921. From Jingangshan (井冈山, one of CCP’s early bases in Jiangxi province) to Tian’anmen Square, millions of innocent people have died, and we must remember them, but also reflect on wave after wave of sufferings. We have no right to dictate your minds or ask you to do something, but we do have a dream: we dream that, in a future not too far from now, each one of us can live in a country free of fear where history is restored and justice realized. This is the China Dream we have – we, a group of Chinese students studying abroad.

Written by:
Gu Yi (古懿, University of Georgia, [email protected])

Co-signed by:
Feng Yun (封云, University of Central Lancashire)
Chen Chuangchuang (陈闯创, Columbia University)
Zheng Dan (郑丹, Adelphi University)
Chen Bingxu (陈炳旭, Missouri State University)
Jin Meng (金萌, Northwest Missouri State University)
Lu Yan (卢炎, University at Albany, SUNY)
Wang Xiaoyue (王宵悦, University at Albany, SUNY)
Wang Jianying (王剑鹰, University of Missouri)
Meng Li  (St. John’s University)
Wu Lebao (吴乐宝, Melbourne, Australia)

You can sign it too:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1mXmqrVd-rmeahW9j8lrBMwupdfIaS3KE2bbKfW5r2sY/viewform

Translated by China Change
Chinese origina《海外中国留学生六四26周年致国内同学的公开信》

Anodyne Attempt to Rewrite History

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063384701&k=fcsrMtW

The ‘Umbrella Festival’ opened today at the JCCAC in Shep Kip Mei. You’ll have noticed the inverted commas I put around the festival name, yes the festival poster is yellow and has an umbrella on it – but that’s about all the ‘festival’ has in common with 2014’s umbrella protests. When one of the festival’s curator’s Prof. Katrien Jacobs stands on stage and starts joking about making her speech notes on a post-it like on the Lennon Wall before continuing with “As a foreigner I found the protests sexy and fun and that’s what we want to do with this festival, keep the fun going…”

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063376599&k=tJJfR6G

The Umbrella Festival is an anaemic poorly conceived joke. An insult to the HongKongers who stood up for their beliefs and voiced a desire for Universal Suffrage to precipitate the removal of the morally corrupt politicians and civil servants who are destroying the Hong Kong we love and call home with their arse-licking of the mainland amidst the lining of their own pockets.

The JCCAC is an interesting space and there are mini-exhibits and photos spread over it’s 9 floors. I didn’t see the words universal suffrage anywhere, not a single mention about the underlying reasons for the protest. Not a mention of the police violence – there was one photo of the tear gas. The only comment about police violence was in a theatrical piece by FM Theatre Power (see video) that was part of the opening ceremony, but even that was tempered when the police become ‘caring mothers’ and embraced the demonstrators.

There is a mini-Lennon wall – but no explanation of the what it symbolized or how it got started… You can add you own post-it, but the ones already posted were banal and safe, as were the chalk drawings. For ‘fun’ as Professor Jacobs described it, get a poster and walk around to get ‘umbrella’ stamps at different parts of the building…

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063397027&k=GBDQS5g

Another of the curators claims as they opened the festival was to celebrate the Umbrella protests art… the protest zones were vibrant artistic and discoursive hubs with new things being created and revealed everyday. Yet almost none of that is here, why not?

There are some interesting close-up photos – but no photos which show the scale or size of the protests. In fact I couldn’t find an exhibit which even explained that there were three protest zones.

What could have been a fascinating examination of the protests and the art that emerged over the 79 days instead reeks of a government funded snow job, an attempt to rewrite one of the seminal moments in Hong Kong’s history.

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063380757&k=ZbwQphB

Umbrella Festival @ JCCAC – 17 May, 2015

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063370553&k=n5V8CMV

The Umbrella Festival opened at the Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre in Shep Kip Mei
Click on any image to see the full gallery of images

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063366462&k=2Pf2vB7

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063372125&k=dbW8s8d

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063394343&k=DqWBBv4


http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063367559&k=CtGPL4b

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063367706&k=dZFv4fm

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063382705&k=crmQQSP

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063379376&k=3JSvfDH

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063371681&k=CXZDw9P

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063392153&k=9TqQQg5

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Umbrella-Festival-Opening/49316366_5Ctxzg#!i=4063390822&k=9S8pgz2

Joshua Wong: Speaking Notes for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development of the House of Commons of Canada

Joshua Wong: Speaking Notes for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development of the House of Commons of Canada

Honourable Chair and honourable members of the Standing Committee,

I am Joshua Wong, Convenor of Scholarism, a 18-year-old University Student now. Thanks for the Canadian Parliament’s invitation, giving me the opportunity to be one of the Hong Kong representatives to share here.

Today, from a student’s perspective, I hope that I can share my experience and exposure in these social movements since my age of 14, illustrating how the Central Government of China oppress the future of the next generation in the aspects of political systems and education. I hope my sharing will help to enhance the international concern about Hong Kong’s democratic progress.

On July 1st 2003, there were 500 thousand Hong Kong people walking out on the street to protest against the Article 23 of Basic Law which oppressed freedom of speech. In addition, the People also strive for the realization of the Universal Suffrage. The huge participation in that incident did not only cause the stepping down of Tung Chee Hwa who was then the Chief Executive, but also the withdraw of Article 23 on Basic Law.

Since then, we can observe that the Central Government began to have a strong feel about a need to strengthen the Hong Kong people’s identity recognition to China or the Chinese Communist Party. As a result, focusing at the identity issue of the young people and students, in 2011, the Education Department announced that all Primary and Secondary schools in Hong Kong must launch the subject of National Education in their curriculum.

In that National Education subject, there were quite many parts emphasizing the student’s need to establish the obedience as well as the pride towards the Chinese Communist Government, with the standards such as students were expected to feel touched with tears in front of the National Flag during the ceremony. That means, the National Education subject was in fact more than education subject, but a brain washing tool!

If the nature of the Education was to develop the young people’s independent thinking capability, this National Education subject definitely violated this education principle. It illustrated that the Central Government just viewed Hong Kong as a ruled obedient, without any respect towards the youth and students’ right to attain a proper citizenship, including the right to criticize the government.

Since then, I had a strong awareness that not only political parties and teacher’s unions protest against the National Education Subject, therefore, 4 years ago, at the age of 14, I established a student organization, Scholarism, gathering a few hundreds secondary students who supported the core values of democracy and freedom. We walked onto the street, protesting, promoting our values and expressing our requests, gaining a lot of supports from the Hong Kong People in a very short time.

Later, with the exposure of the Government’ brain-washing education material to the public, called “The China Mode”, which described the Chinese Communist Party as an “advanced, selfless and united ruling organization”. With that exposure, the whole city’s protest temperature against the National Education was raised rapidly. With the hungers strike of students and 120 thousands people’s occupation at the Central Government Office, the Government was forced to put a side the National Education Subject. At that time, I was only 15.

Previously, people thought that political movement can only be lead by political parties and worker’s unions. No one could imagine that secondary school students could plan a social movement. After the success of the Anti-National-Education Movement, more people showed their concerns and give support about the social actions from the student organizations.

Many people began to discover that it was the students’ energy, persistence, determination and courage which had enabled them to stand upon the stage of History for a more equal political system. This was why after the Anti-National-Education Movement, Scholarism continued to strive for the Universal Suffrage.

Last year, there were various joint activities with Federation of Student, expressing our dissatisfaction against the 31,August decision, including student strike jointed by more than one thousand students and ten thousand university students and the Septermber 26’s action of re-entering of Civil Plaza which triggered the Umbrella Movement.

In the nearly 80 days’ Umbrella movement, there is not yet any achievement, regardless of the participation of 200 thousand Hong Kong People. But through my experience in the participation of social movement, I want to tell every honorable congressman here and all the Chinese in Canada, after going though the days from Anti-National-Education Movement and the days of the Umbrella Movement, the lives of students in Hong Kong is no longer the same.

The generation of extensive political awareness has already begun. This is the reason why I still have hope even though there is none of achievement from the Umbrella Movement, even though those pro-China people are continuously oppress academic freedom, even though there are continuous political legal prosecutions against the protesters.

All the honorable congressman here, you may think that in a democratic country, maybe politics should be the professional participations of political parties and politicians. Social movement in the street should only be organized by a minority group of idealistic university students. But from 4 years ago till now, the age of social movement participants are declining in Hong Kong.

The phenomenon in the Umbrella Movement is that: Some 13-year-old children would participate in student strike on the street, and some 14 year-old girls would stand firm against tear gas equipped with googles and masks , while some other 15 year-old students would be arrested due to civil disobedience. Junior Form student become activist.

I understand that there are many calculations related to international politics, every day you may attend to this kind of hearings as routine and perhaps there won’t be much impact on your next election no matter you care about issues in Hong Kong or not.

But please think in different position, the children participating in the Umbrella Movement, actually are similar in age with your sons and daughters in your houses.

Maybe you have difficulty in understand why these students, living in an international financial centre, would rather risk their future to push the social reform, regardless of the risk of being blacklisted from entry into China or leaving offense record which may affect their career.

Although the young people understand that the participation of social movement may affect their future career, yet when they also discover that they can’t see any future in the current system, changing the current social system should be the only way out!

I hope that Canada Congress can continue to concern about Hong Kong’s situation, and exert the influence and pressure to the China Government since maintaining international oversight and engagement is an effective way for supporting democratic freedoms and human rights in Hong Kong.

This is the end of my sharing.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/posts/834264353332741

———————————————

我是學民思潮召集人黃之鋒,現時是一個十八歲的大學一年級生,在此感謝加拿大國會的邀請,讓我能夠成為其中一個香港代表,有機會在此與各位國會議員作出分享,過往因著參與反國教運動和雨傘運動,促使我成為一個學生運動領袖,盼望今天能夠以學生角度,向大家分享我從14歲參與社會運動至今的所見所聞,述說中央政府怎樣在政制和教育層面壓制香港下一代的未來,盼望增加國際間對香港民主進程的關注。

自從2003年7月1日50萬名香港人走上街頭,反對壓制言論自由的《基本法》23條立法,並要求落實普選,促使當時的特首董建華下台,以及《基本法》23條無限期擱置,引致中史政府一直認為香港必須加強港人對中國的身份認同,特別針對是年輕人和學生人心未回歸的身分認同問題,結果促使教育局在2011年宣佈翌年必須在全港中小學推行國民教育科,固然香港現時作為中國的一部份,推行國民教育在本質上不是問題,但當課程內容多番強調學生必須建立對中共政權的順服和自豪感,甚至誇張得表示學生看到國旗流淚才是符合標淮,只反映這個科目不單是國民教育,更是洗腦國民教育。若然教育的本質應是培訓年輕人擁有獨立思考,但國民教育科卻是違反原意,政府這種強行灌輸愛黨情懷的做法,可見政權只視香港為被統治順民,從不尊重學生和年輕人擁有公民意識和權利去批判政府。

從那個時後開始,我深信不只是政黨和教師工會方可以反對洗腦國民教育科,便在四年前創立學生組織學民思潮,與數百個支持民主、自由等核心價值的中學生走上街頭,透過遊行、示威和街頭宣傳表達訴求並爭取市民支持,最後因著政府的《中國模式》洗腦教材曝光,描述中國共產黨是「進步、無私和團結的執政集團」引致全城反對聲音越演越烈,終學民思潮的中學生絕食以及12萬人佔領政府總部的情況下,迫使政府擱置國民教育科,而那個時候的黃之鋒只有15歲。

過往港人認為政治運動只能夠由政黨和工會帶領,無人想象高中生也有能力策劃社會運動,學生在媒體曝光策劃行動完全是難以想象,但自從反國教運動成功以後,便有更多人關注學生組織的動向,發現學生的年輕、堅持、決心和勇氣也同樣能夠讓他們站在歷史的舞台上,為著香港未來爭取更平等的政制而發聲,這也促使了學民思潮在反國教後繼續爭取普選,並在2014年與學聯一起組織各種行動表達對「人大八三一」決定的不滿,包括是過千名中學生和以萬計的大學生罷課,以及9月26日的重奪公民廣場行動促使雨傘運動的出現。

在雨傘運動近八十天的佔領裡,即使有著二十萬港人參與其中,也尚未能爭取甚麼成果,但我想透過我參與社會運動的歷程,告訴各位加拿大的國會議員以及華人,從反國教走到雨傘運動,香港的學界以已經活得不再一樣,全面政治化的年代已經開始,這也是在運動未能取得成果後,縱使親中人士打斷打壓學術自由,透過政治檢控打壓抗爭者,我還抱有盼望的主要原因。

各位身處民主國家的國會議員們,在民主化的國家,政治也許是政黨和政客們的專利,即使是街頭運動也只是由部份抱著理想主義的大學生策動,但從2011年走到2015年,香港參與社運的年齡不斷下調,雨傘運動呈現的狀況是13歲剛升上中學的孩子便會參與街頭罷課、14歲的小女孩帶著眼罩、口罩及安全帽抵禦催淚彈,以及15歲學生參與公民抗命繼而被捕。

即使我明白國際政治充滿著數之不盡的利益和計算,每天參與這些聽證會也只是你們的例行公事,可能關注香港事務與否跟你們的選票也沒有太大影響,但請你們切身處地思考一下,在香港曾參與雨傘運動的孩子,其實和你們家中兒女年紀也差不多,也許你們不太明白這群居於國際金融中心、經濟發達城市裡的學生,為何不惜被列入黑名單不能前往中國大陸、留有案底難以找到工作,也要奉上自已的前途去促成社會改革,但當中共政權從承諾2007年落實普選,待至2017年也只是給一個假普選香港人,只因即使年輕人能明白自已參與社會運動會影響前途,但當年輕人根本見不到這個社會體制給予他們甚麼前途,改革這個社會體制便是唯一的出路,盼望你們能夠繼續關注香港的狀況,透過製造國際輿論向中央政府斯壓。

Audrey Eu: Speaking Notes for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development of the House of Commons of Canada

Audrey Eu: Speaking Notes for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development Of the House of Commons of Canada

Audrey Eu: Speaking Notes for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development of the House of Commons of Canada

The continued prosperity and stability of Hong Kong as one of Asia’s international city under the “One Country Two Systems” concept with a genuine respect for the Hong Kong systems and core values, such as freedom of the press, rule of law, clean and efficient government is beneficial to the whole world including Canada. However this is currently under threat with the lack of progress towards genuine constitutional reform and universal suffrage.

For many years, Hong Kong has been waiting for universal suffrage. It was promised for 2007 and 2008, ten years after the handover from Britain to China. This was denied by the decision of the National Peoples’ Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) in 2004. We waited for 2012. This was again denied by the NPCSC decision of 2007 which promised universal suffrage of the CE in 2017.

When the government first began the consultation for the method of CE election in 2017, the paper was headed “let’s talk”. So Hong Kong people talked about the methods we would like. Yet our hopes were dashed by the Decision of the National Peoples’ Congress Standing Committee made on 31 August 2014 (the 8-31 Decision). It came up with a method that no Hong Konger, not even the most conservative, has dared talked about.

Based on the 8-31 Decision, the Hong Kong government has recently announced the proposal which will be put to a vote by our Legislature towards the end of June.

There will be no more than two to three candidates and they must be endorsed by the Nominating Committee (NC). The NC is what we call a “small circle” made up of 1200 people (only 0.01% of HK total population). Its composition is the same as the Selection Committee (SC) which used to elect the CE. From past experience, the great majority of its members are heavily influenced and controlled by Beijing. For example, in 2002, despite the overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the incumbent CE, Mr. Tung, almost 90% of the members of the SC endorsed Mr. Tung as the only candidate and he was declared elected by the SC as the only viable candidate.

Nomination will be a two step process. First you need to be endorsed by 10% of the NC, so theoretically there can be as many as ten candidates. Then there is a second step pre-election by secret ballot where only the top 2 to 3 who get the majority support of the NC can become a candidate for the CE election. This means a prescreening of candidates by Beijing to ensure only those accepted by them can go through. This method of election has been compared to North Korea and Iran.

The 27 democrats in the Hong Kong Legislature have sufficient votes to block this proposal and they have already vowed to do so as it fails to meet international standards for universal suffrage guaranteed by our Basic Law. The Government told the public not to have illusion of any last minute changes. They would not even propose changes which are open under the local law, for example changing the corporate votes to directors votes, adjusting the distribution of seats so some sector like agriculture and fisheries would not have a disproportionate 60 out of 1200 seats in the NC, allowing two rounds of votes to ensure the pre-screened candidate would have majority public support or allowing protest votes to be counted etc.

Not only is the long cherished hopes of democracy dashed, the lack of mandate makes governance extremely difficult, if not possible. The proposal, whether it can be passed or not, will only cause even greater rift in the society and does nothing to alleviate the “deep rooted divide” which is acknowledged to exist in Hong Kong.

Instead of tackling the real problem, the government blames the media, youths, and foreign influence. It believes that the solutions lie in interference with the media, manipulation of university appointments, the introduction of braining washing national education or Mainland exchange experience and high handed arrests and prosecutions.

Many students and ordinary citizens have been arrested, and later prosecuted arising from their participation in the Umbrella Movement or related protests. Not surprisingly, hasty prosecutions led to acquittals and the judges criticized the police for giving testimony proven false by the videos taken by members of the public. However this led some pro-establishment legislators to criticize judges with the remark “Police catch people but judges release people”. The former Deputy Commissioner of ICAC who was one of CY Leung’s campaign team even said that judges should be required to declare their political stance.

In contrast to the many arrests and prosecutions, the Commissioner of Police has refused to disclose the names of 7 police officers involved in the brutal attack of one peaceful protester (for completeness I declare he is a member of my party). His hands were tied behind his back and carried facedown to a dark corner where one officer stood guard and the others took turns to kick and punch him for some 4 minutes whilst he was lying motionless on the ground. Although the event took place more than 6 months ago on 15 October 2014, no prosecution has yet been brought. The 4 minutes attack was captured by a television crew and the footage was aired on their station in the early hours of that morning. When the senior management woke up that morning and saw the clip, instead of commending the scoop, they chastised the news team. It led to removing the person responsible to a different post and other repercussions for the news team. That also tells you something about the state of our press. In their 2014 report, the Hong Kong Journalist Association said “The year under review has been the darkest for press freedom for several decades, with the media coming under relentless assault from several directions. There have been attacks on journalists, sackings and personnel changes affecting critical personalities and the withdrawal of advertising, which places pressure on the editorial integrity of publications.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce described Hong Kong as “the most Canadian City in Asia” as well as “Canada’s gateway to China”. They emphasize their belief in “free enterprise, rule of law, ethical business practices, entrepreneurship, social responsibility and environmental responsibility”. I believe we share common goals. The current impasse on universal suffrage poses a serious threat to Hong Kong as we know it.

We hope Canada will join hands with the International community for stronger engagement with Hong Kong at both government and civil society levels in ensuring that the Sino-British Joint Declaration with respect to “One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong People ruling Hong Kong with a High Degree of Autonomy” is honoured and respected, and that Hong Kong has the constitutional reform that meets with international standards and that will ensure that we continue to be a vibrant city.

Audrey Eu
2nd May 2015

Source: https://www.facebook.com/audrey.euyuetmee/photos/a.480482554434.260991.197345194434/10153218767224435/

Occupy Prince Edward – Buildings Department Eviction Protest

16114_1131989060161357_504953483258328111_n

Occupy Prince Edward just started outside Pioneer Centre in protest at the Building Department’s eviction of Tsuen Wan families from a sub-divided industrial unit two days ago.

There’s lots of people showing up in support outside the Pioneer Centre Mall, passing sleeping mats and supplies through the cracks of locked doors to the protestors camped out on the ground floor.

The building management have blocked the lift from stopping at the Buildings Department on the 18/F essentially trapping those protesting the evictions there, and also turned off the a/c to that floor.

For some background on the same issue of sub-divided industrial units ‘converted’ into flats, see this 2012 Varsity article http://varsity.com.cuhk.edu.hk/index.php/2012/05/industrial-buildings-subdivided-units/

Occupy Prince Edward

11188173_1603789519838030_5702279352937680235_n11169866_1048514165176407_2048499882634251021_n

https://www.facebook.com/socrec/videos/vb.160696287290644/1132024046824525/

Photos and video courtesy of SocRec and LostDutch

Hong Kong Heroes

A retired couple’s mission to prove 17-year-old student Ho Pak-hei innocent of assaulting a police officer during the Occupy protests…

10409595_625250517576268_5812774095412812928_n

 

11059425_625250560909597_6699069197851540279_n

11174775_625250610909592_407992753033313704_n

10155860_625250680909585_3534441274197739810_n

11182173_625250724242914_5193971638088779926_n

Helbert Lau believed the happy ending was only part of the story – the case proved the truth in the allegations of abuse of power by police and he called for a review of the issue.

His wife, who is in her fifties, voiced concerns about some of the negative comments made on social media following her testimony. “Does that mean there aren’t enough people who are willing to do the same thing?” Yeung asked.

The couple hoped they will inspire more people to come forward “to tell the truth”.

25th Anniversary of the Basic Law – CY Leung Attempts to Rewrite History

basic law

At the ceremony for the 25th Anniversary of the Basic Law, CY Leung claims that the authors of the Basic Law never intended candidates for the city’s leadership elections to be put forward by the Hong Kong public. Martin Lee Chu-ming, one of the drafting committee members and founding chairman of the Democratic Party, said Leung was “factually wrong”.

Chief Executive, CY Leung, has since retracted part of a statement in which he said that civic nomination was never mentioned during the drafting of the Basic Law.

Mr Leung originally issued a statement on Sunday afternoon again accusing pan-democratic lawmakers of wrongly suggesting that the Basic Law allows for civic nomination for electing chief executives.

Just three hours later, Mr Leung reissued his statement, but this time paragraph two said only that two of five proposals for selecting the chief executive did not mention civic nomination, rather than all five proposals as stated in the earlier version.

On Saturday, veteran democrat Martin Lee, a member of the Basic Law drafting committee, presented documents which he said showed that the idea of civil nomination had in fact been proposed.

Mr Lee said among the five proposals raised during the drafting, proposal three stated that someone could be a chief executive candidate if they were nominated by 50 hong kong permanent residents. He said this showed that the spirit of civic nomination had been suggested.

It’s sad to see the man ‘elected’ to represent Hong Kong doing his best to destroy it, all for his personal gain.

Chief Executive’s Revised Statement on “Civic Nomination”

In response to recent allegation that the concept of “civic nomination” had been raised during the drafting of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive, Mr Leung Chun-ying, issued the following statement:

Yesterday (April 4) when I addressed the “Seminar for the 25th Anniversary of the Promulgation of the Basic Law”, I pointed out that “during the drafting of the Basic Law, the ‘consultation document’ released in 1988 has listed five proposals on methods for selecting the Chief Executive. The two proposals of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage have not mentioned ‘civic nomination’.”

When the Basic Law was endorsed and promulgated on April 4, 1990, Article 45 reads: “The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”

If someone said the concept of “civic nomination” had been raised during the drafting of the Basic Law, this exactly illustrates that “civic nomination” and “nomination by a nominating committee” are totally different concepts. After comprehensive consultation by the Basic Law Drafting Committee, “nomination by a nominating committee” was eventually stated in the Basic Law. Hence for those who recently said that “nomination by a nominating committee” could be interpreted as “civic nomination”, they are just “guessing and taking advantage of the literal meaning of words” and contravening the Basic Law.

Last year, some members of the Legislative Council insisted that “civic nomination” was indispensable in selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. If today these members insist on such saying, they know full well that they are contravening the Basic Law and are just creating problems. The result is they would take away the rights of Hong Kong people to select the Chief Executive by “one person, one vote” in 2017.

Ends/Sunday, April 5, 2015 Issued at HKT 19:38

Read the official release here  (It should be noted that this is the revised version of CY Leung original statement)

Hong Kong’s Basic Law is available in English and Chinese here