This is the collected and reposted diary from the original Glutter on Radioland.
The First Nine Days
Glutter started on July 1st 2003 at about 4 am. 12 hours later, half a million people were on the streets of Hong Kong protesting against an “anti-subversion” bill called Article 23.
The content of the bill was a direct attack on our freedom of speech, right to gather, and could put anyone who worked towards a democratic Hong Kong in jail without representation.
The size and passion of the protest took the city, our government and even those of us standing there by surprise. And our previously arrogant beyond belief government officials, yielded, delayed the bill, and two stepped down.
And Hong Kong is forever different. Our stand against the bill has turned to a collective call for universal suffrage. Something previously thought to be unimaginable but now seems more than possible.
We still don’t have the vote, Article 23 is only delayed and will be pushed through again at a later date. And what was meant to be a self indulgent little art diary became a place I verbalized, recorded, and even discovered my own voice on the matter.
Here are the first nine days of Glutter, and also the nine days I hope history will call “The beginning of the democratic movement in Hong Kong. That succeeded in…..” I don’t know when it will be. But I think it will happen. I’ll keep you updated.
Yan
—
This is What Happenned in Hong Kong On July 1st 2003
Article 23 Protest Photos
July 1st 2003 Hong Kong
Six Years Since the Handover
Democracy Protest Photos
(Screen Captures from the Video I took)
I would like to share the most dramatic moments and most touching moments of the my day… It started at about four thirty, we have been walking for an hour and a half already, and we came to a stop..
This is a photo of the procession on one side of the road.
As you can see it was packed already
Here the crowd is refusing to move until the police let us through
At about four thirty PM, the section I was standing came to a side of the road that was closed, with no traffic but the protesters were refused entry. The two sides of the main road was being diverted to one, and it was a concern for many people because the protest consisted of lots of older people and children.
The protesters then demanded the police open up the second side of Hennessy Road for us to go through, and we succeeded after about 20 minutes. There were no scuffles or any kind of violence. The police and people just discussed this in a reasonable manner, and asked us to wait so they could divert all the traffic.
The police leading the way through the newly
opened streets with all the protesters behind
The First protestors in the newly opened road!!
The Crowd Reacts to the Announcement
that 500,000 Protestors
have been logged and counted
When I saw this I got all teary
There were people as far as the eye can see…
Both Ways..
The people just kept coming..
And there were people still in Victoria Park
waiting to join the march
Due to the number of people, still in Victoria Park, some who have waited for over 4 hours, police decided to close down the whole of central and opened up our main thoroughfare (similar to the East Side Freeway in New York) called Gloucester Rd. Allowing three huge streets to be taken up by protesters.
This is the protesters coming from Gloucester Rd
to join the main march
The Meeting Point
And since there were traffic lights in between the two main groups, the marchers would come in sections. And each time a new group joined the main protest, the welcome cheer was deafening.
When the streams met
And this lasted for six to seven hours..
The first protesters left Victoria Park in Causeway Bay at 3pm the last group left at 7pm. It was dark by the time all the people left the starting point. Not to say all the people who joined the march mid-point. The procession took a few hours to make it to Central and arrived at our government secretariat.
I think we spoke well..
*****
July 1st Protest Mpeg
This is an amazing 3 minute video of the day.
http://www.rebuildhk.com/upload/71rebuildhk_ppc.mpg
The closing shot reads:
“July 1st, the Start of the Democratic Era.”
Yes, let it be.
—-
July 2nd 2003.
Half a Million on the Streets of Hong Kong and not a peep in Salon..
Yesterday was the biggest protest in Hong Kong since 1989 which happened the week after the Chinese Government went in to Tiananmen square with tanks to kill our own best and brightest. Half a million people went out on the streets to protest both Article 23, a new anti-subversion law and general discontent with our government.
Article 23 states that, the government can act against subversion. Except we don’t know how to define “act” nor “subversion”. It also states that any group that is outlawed in China can also be outlawed in Hong Kong. Like the falun gong, catholic Church, and well OUR DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
We’ve been asking for a white paper stating what those words mean, and the ins and outs of the law. Our non-elected government refuses and is rushing the bill through on the ninth.
It’s a disgrace.
And part of the reason they have refused to issue a white paper is that they don’t want to lose to the judiciary like they did in 1998. There were issues of “rights of abode” which was taken to law. And our courts said that the law that states only a certain number of children of Hong Kong permanent residents can come to Hong Kong, is unlawful, and that ALL children who have one or both parents with permanent residents status should have the right to live in Hong Kong. Our government decided that was not right, went to China and asked for a “clarification” of the basic law for them, which China said, “Well, you know.. the court is WRONG.” And the law was reversed.
That was it. Done deal. We have a government which does not respect the basic rule of law that is guaranteed to us for 50 years (great, so our kids can suffer under the rule of China, but we will be dead), and they are doing everything they can to cut our freedoms right now.
What concerns me is why are they rushing it? What has China got in mind in the next few years for them to push this law out?
Worse they treat us like a bunch of infantile non thinking robots. Our Secretary for Security Regina Yip famously said last week that the protest can be ignored because people of Hong Kong don’t really understand what we are doing. And that we will be out of the streets for “leisure” the protest as a day out.
Then again this woman did say the White House “didn’t understand the law and hope they will read it again carefully” after the white house issued a statement against article 23. And the whole thing was thoroughly embarrassing for all of us because, we don’t feel that the white house has much to say about the freedoms and rights of people when they have just passed the patriot’s act, and also the human rights issues with the Afghanistan prisoners of war. But Regina Yip (also known as Brush Head, because of an unfortunate hair style) has made everything worse.
I can’t even truly say all the issues of what is happening here and the feelings we have as a city right now. We are angry, and we are disillusioned. And I feel that we are worried about what is to come. Hong Kong has suffered so much over SARs already…
I will revisit this again over the next few days. I would like to write a detailed report of what happened yesterday, and just discuss the issues of what article 23 is. But I have to think more about this…
However in the mean time..
Please Sign a Petition to support our fight over article 23 http://www.againstarticle23.org/en/
Please come back, there is more to say on the issue and on the ninth this month, we are asking people to surround the legislative council so we can stop the passing of the bill. It will be symbolic only -as China and hong Kong government will push this through no matter what. But when we can’t vote, when we don’t have a say. We can only do the symbolic.
—
July 03 2003.
News Today:
Our Chief Executive Tung Chee Wah has refused to make a comment on the protest. Although on Tuesday he issued a brief statement stating that he was “very concerned”. Brush Head our Secretary of Security has for once not come out to tell us we don’t know what is going on and we have to Trust her. Supposedly they are having “closed door meetings.” I am not hopeful though. They are probably complaining how on earth did all these Hong Kong people got so confused. Watch this space for the next Regina Yip statement of stupidity.
Reported on the news today is that seven independent legislators who were voted in by “professional blocks of electorate” have decided to “rethink” their position of supporting article 23 due to the protest and will go back to their “professional” groups to seek the opinion. A lot of doctors and lawyers are pressuring “their” legislator at this moment. And thus leaving the article a very small margin and could possibly be rejected.
Secretary for Education and Man Power Arthur Li Kwok-Cheung said that “We will not undermine the people’s right. But not legislating is out of the question.”
The question on my mind is “WHY?” They are obviously under pressure from China, but we are supposed to be living in “One country Two Systems” and China is not under the basic law supposed to have a say in how we run our city. I keep saying this. What has China got in mind for this to be so urgent? And again, even if they don’t do anything now, and wait ten years, the law will still be in place for China to act when they want, now or in the future.
To make this more real and in people terms: I would like to add that what I am doing right now under this legislation could be treated as “threat to national security”, and probably be held under “journalist who disclose state secrets” and therefore, not untitled to any legal representation if the government decided to prosecute me. It means after this law is enacted it’s actually legal for the police to come to my apartment take my computer away as “evidence” that I am put away without a lawyer.
Which is why we need at the very least a white paper stating exactly what “subversion” is. It’s not out of our imagination that someone saying something bad about China is a “threat.” Not too long ago, people were still being placed in jail in China for just “expressing” anti-government ideas. And China can be unpredictable and you never know when the tides turn and they clamp down. We have seen it throughout our history.
I know this sounds hyperbole, but you have to understand that if the law is passed as it is, then legally this can happen. For example during the crack down on June 4, people who were holding or smuggling footage of the massacre were placed in jail.
And just on Tuesday, I asked a friend who works in an environmental group if I could film him and his colleagues talking about the protest and the article and he said he couldn’t let me because they had a number of people in China working for the same organization. And they are afraid that if any of them are seen to be “anti-china” this could mean problems for their colleagues.
And “problems for his colleagues” could be as simple as losing their jobs, the organization banned as “subversive” (which means it will be banned in Hong Kong as well). Or at the worse case scenario, those people put in jail for being part of a “subversive” organization.
Do any of us think it will happen? The truth is we are unsure. I don’t think I will find that hours after the bill is passed on the ninth, I will have anyone kicking down my door. But I can’t say for sure if I keep this up, somewhere down the line, in ten years, someone might come in and get me in the middle of the night. It’s happened before in China, and I don’t have faith it will never happen again and the worse part is, if this bill is passed, it can happen in Hong Kong.
It’s true that day to day things in Hong Kong and China we live in “peace” and as you can see elsewhere on this blog and will see in the future, I don’t live in oppression. And I have a life that is the same as if I would when I used to live in California. But it’s when it comes to crunch points like this, or when you have a sensitive job, or when you really want to say something, it’s when it gets sensitive and scary.
—
July 04 2003.
My Leaders Tell Me I am Confused, Mislead, and Don’t Understand Myself Why I Went Out to Protest on Tuesday. Somehow I Don’t Think So.
I caught the last bit of TV feed of the legislative council debates on Article 23. The summary said that many of the legislators who were pro-article 23 reiterated that the people in Hong Kong are misled and misunderstood the bill. Furthermore the majority of protesters is not actually against the article itself and used the protest to vent their dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and the way the government dealt with the SARS crisis.
I am not sure where the logic of that statement is. Since the public feels our government has let us down twice -thus are angry at them- therefore it’s perfectly justifiable to ignore our voices and pass the law.
I would assume that if our government have failed the people twice already. It’s a good indication why we do not to trust them. Which is a good enough reason to ask for a longer period of consultation and more explanation, let alone demand a say on this issue as well as others.
It’s true we are angry at the state of the economy, at the slow reaction towards the SARS crisis and the mishandling of the hospitals and staff. But are we also angry at the way the government is pushing this bill through in on itself. The protest was a show of dissatisfaction due to a combination of causes and an accumulative dissent.
It is not a “borrowing?of issues, using one to vent over the other two. During the worse of the SARS crisis, our city pulled together, donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the hospitals, and children and elderly parents of those who died of SARS. We did not go out to protest our government. We have not gone out en mass to protest the economy even though many feel the government could be doing more to help the situation (like not raising taxes), but we also know that the economy is dependent on many different factors.
And although it’s possible to say the public did not go out during the SARS crisis because they didn’t want to risk infection. It’s easy to see that’s not true as masses of people went out to attend the wake of superstar Leslie Cheung, most donning masks of course. It’s a matter of priorities, and currently the main concern of the people of Hong Kong is Article 23.
Our government is constantly telling us that they understand our motivations behind the protest and our constant scrutiny of them better than ourselves. That “they?somehow know “why” more than us as individuals.
It’s truly patronizing, not to mention insulting. I don’t appreciate people who I view as having little to no understanding of the basic principals of law (and if they do, they show a very shallow respect for it) tell me what I am capable of comprehending.
These are moments when I hope that Tung and Regina Yip and all those pro-article 23 loud mouths are truly “stupid?in the basest sense of the word. That they do believe what they say, when they tell us that “they will not curb our freedoms?(forget those who come AFTER them, of course). Otherwise when the law passes, we have to accept that the very people who are willingly and purposely taking away our freedoms are also the ones who will eventually define how to implement Article 23.
A very side note: For the first time in years I heeded the prayer with the Catholic Bishop of Hong Kong, who asked God to give Mr. Tung more intelligence. It was the most compelling reason in years (outside my grandmother’s funeral) for me to go to Sunday mass.
If I am optimistic, the way the government is acting will mean more people are going to turn up on the ninth, and that the unimaginable number of a million people (as the Civil Human Rights Front predicted in the newspaper yesterday) will really materialize.
However the police chief has warned people that creating a disruption or joining a disruption of the legislative council is against the law and the maximum penalty is $10000 and a year in jail. Even though the Human Rights Front has issued a statement that they never planned for the protest to include disruptions of the legislative meeting, I think that’s what many people I spoke to thought the plan was.
The threat of jail time would deter a lot of people from coming out. It’s already a working day, and I think many people would like a more peaceful solution to this, rather than cops dragging us all off to the jail. Although the elected legislators did say today, if the government wont listen to peaceful protests, does it have to turn into violence before they will? The answer of course is no.?They aren’t going to listen even if we burn down the legislative council (Is this a security threat? Because I thought that?).
All I hope is those few semi-elected councilors will vote with their conscience, and not think about what might happen to them in the future if they vote “no?on the bill. And all of us out there and all the people who came out on Tuesday are supporting them and “watching their backs?so to speak.
I was really encouraged to find out that thirteen independent members, have said they are undecided and that the protest has influenced their decision, while Mr. Albert Chan Wai-Yip (I) and Ms. Audrey Eu Yuet-Mee (I) both have decided to vote “no?respectively because “I will vote against it. The protest gave me confidence?and “The protest was an eye-opener. I am going to vote against the bill.?
It is rumored (coz our actual “government?officials are no where to be seen since Tuesday) that after consulting with his advisers Mr. Tung has decided that there is no need to delay the passing of the bill, nor do we need any consultation with the public, or a writing of a white paper.
It is a “rumor?because Mr. Tung has yet to make a public statement. The one issued on Tuesday evening where Mr. Tung said he was “Very Concerned?was a press release. The paper did say that Mr. Tung was “poised” to make a statement today. But one of the few elected legislators said during the debate that “Hong Kong needs a leader who can say more than just “Good Morning.” It’s 4pm over here now. So I can suppose Mr. Tung hasn’t said anything.
It’s a double edge sword. He’s a coward for his refusal to tackle this head on, and his behavior points to his lack in political savvy and respect for the people of Hong Kong, but I know, if and when he does make a statement, whatever he says will just show his complete lack of political savvy and respect of the people in Hong Kong.
News Source: SCMP and World Channel Feed of the legislative council meeting.
Update: 6:32:02 PM
Our Liberal Party, who previously had promised to support article 23 has said that after consultation with the the Central Government (China) they have discovered that they had not set a time table for the bill and therefore there is no reason to rush it through. Therefore they urge the government to delay the passing of the bill.
Thier 8 votes could stop the bill from passing. Hmmm… but what if the Chinese government HAD set a time table for the law to pass. Does that mean they would vote “yes” anyway?
I need to say this “One Country Two Systems” people!!!
I guess this is a sorta kinda victory. We are closer to the goal of not passing the bill right now. But the cracks in Hong Kong having autonomy outside of China is showing again. I still feel frustrated, but you still have to count small victories.
Tung actually did speak, he said: 1) He is weighing all the different opinions. 2) The law must pass. 3) It is our duty as Chinese Citizens to pass this bill.
It took him three days for three sentences.
“Our father who art in heaven….”
—
July 05 2003: Sometimes Public Protest Do Work.
Article 23 Concessions:
Proposal to outlaw groups linked to banned mainland organization is scrapped
“Public Interest” is introduced as a defense for disclosing official secrets
“Search without Warrant” Powers for the police are removes
The bill will not be delayed and with the new concessions, the Liberal party and certain Independent party or un affiliated members have not said how they will vote. The democratic party has mustered all the publicly elected officials to vote “no” on the issue. They still need 10 votes in the “Functional Constituency” to vote “no” for the bill to be rejected.
It’s this complex “vote splitting” system, which means you have to win a majority in the 30 geographically votes seats (which is publicly elected) and 30 in the functional Constituency which is voted in by “selected” members of certain industries. And since a lot of industry leaders have business ties with China, they tend to go with the Central Government’s concerns.
And our Finance Secretary is Anthony Leung. I keep calling him Donald. With all the translation between Chinese and English names I get confused. Sorry!!!
DAB Apologizes for Telling the Public They Were Mislead.
Democratic Alliance For the Betterment of Hong Kong’s chairman, and vice-chairman, have apologized to the public for saying we were mislead into going to protest because he didn’t mean to “insult their intelligence”
He also acknowledges that the public sentiment is as such, that his apology isn’t going to gain back any voters.
Political Analyst Mr. Lo Pang Kwong said their comments would do little to sooth public discontent. “The apology may reduce a bit of the people’s hatred of the party, but it may not offer much help in general.”
Thank you for the apology, I guess I can change my tag line (which read Att: HK Government, I am not mislead or confused) and Mr. Lo is right. I just hate them a little less. But it’s still not back to the normal level of disdain I had for them all these years.
New Source SCMP
—
July 06 2003: Making Hong Kong People Happy.
Article 23 Update
“Tung Chee Wah (Chief Executive), Regina Yip our (Secretary of Security) and Anthony Leung (Secretary of Finance) is on a plane flying over Hong Kong, as there is no where they can go without being jeered at.
Chief Secretary Tung wistfully thinks about how rich he is. He said, “Look, since the economy is so bad, how about I donate a hundred dollars, throw it out the window. I am sure I can make one person happy.”
Regina replies, “The Hong Kong people won’t know the difference between a hundred and fifty anyway. We throw out two fifties then two people will be happy when it lands.”
Finance Secretary Anthony thinks about this, and says, “Well, they don’t need that much, how about we throw out ten 10 dollars bills. We can make ten people happy.”
The three of them gets excited about this, thinking this would help their image.
They walk to the top of the plane, approach the pilot to ask for a “clarification” of how best to implement it.
The pilot listens, considers his options, and replies, “I have an idea! We can make a lot more people happy. I think you should listen.”
The three of them discusses it for three days, and decides maybe it’s worth a try.
The pilot goes, “It’s simple. I push all three of you out the window. Straight away, that would make seven million people happy.””
***
Talking about making people happy
One of my aunts said to me, “Since Cheun Moa (long hair, a famous activist in HK) knows he’s probably going to go to jail one day. I wish that on the ninth, he would walk up to Regina Yip and slap the smug look off her face.”
I second this idea. Maybe we can start a “Cheun Moa Slap Regina” Campaign. Here’s a new slogan to yell at the protest…
*Cheung Moa is probably the first and only person to ever set the “Chinese Communist Party” Flag on fire on Chinese Sovereign land, (I can’t say for Taiwan, they might make a habit of it over there at family BBQs). And he was arrested and put in jail for a while. He got probation for that, and didn’t serve his sentence. I know it’s not the actual Chinese Flag he burned, otherwise he would be in jail for sure and right now we need him to slap Regina.
—
Cool Side Note From Prangal Tiwari
The section of the march i was in, got directed to one of the “crowd-control detours” by the police. We were stuck in a small street of Causeway Bay for at least 2 hours…but during that time, even in the 3:30pm heat no one was getting irritated or upset, there was so much energy and excitement.
Then the staff at a restaurant on the street busted out a table and started handing out free glasses of water and tissues to everyone! All the people cheered and the staff kept bringing out more and more jugs of water so everyone could drink…it was an amazing moment.
—
Hong Kong Postpones Controversial Subversion Bill: Rueters.
Sun Jul 6, 9:53 PM ET
HONG KONG (Reuters) – The Hong Kong government, reeling after a massive show of people power last week, postponed on Monday a controversial anti-subversion bill after losing the support of a key legislative ally.
The climbdown came just days after Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa said he would water down some of the bill’s most contentious provisions but vowed to pass the bill this week.
That changed on Sunday when the Liberal Party’s leader quit Tung’s Executive Council, leaving the government potentially short of the votes it needed in the legislature to pass the bill.
Liberal Chairman James Tien had called for the final votes on the bill on July 9 to be delayed until December to allow for more public consultation.
“In light of the position of the Liberal Party, we have decided, after detailed deliberations, to defer the resumption of the second reading of the bill,” Tung said in a statement issued a few hours after midnight after an emergency cabinet meeting.
Critics say the proposed law poses the biggest threat to freedom in the former British colony since its return to Chinese rule in 1997. Many believe Tung has rushed it through under pressure from Beijing, which fears Hong Kong could be used as a base for subversive activities against it.
Tung said the government would step up efforts to explain the legislation to the public. He did not say when the bill would be resubmitted but repeated that Hong Kong was obligated to pass a national security law under Article 23 of its constitution.
CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE
Tung faces a severe crisis of confidence in his ability to lead the territory. One critic said last week the political atmosphere was so poisoned the government would have trouble passing a bill giving away free lunches.
The pro-business Liberal Party was one of Tung’s staunchest allies but reviewed its position after a massive public protest against the bill on Tuesday, which drew half a million people into the streets. The outpouring of public anger at the government rattled Hong Kong’s establishment and alarmed Beijing.
Postponing the bill would cool political tensions but would “further cripple the government’s authority and undermine public confidence in the Tung team,” the South China Morning Post said.
The Standard newspaper said Tien’s resignation from Tung’s executive had dealt “a mortal blow” to the Beijing-backed Hong Kong leader and other papers speculated about whether it would lead to a disintegration of his cabinet and top advisory council.
“How Beijing views all this we can only speculate,” the Standard said.
Tien and several other leading Hong Kong politicians flew to Beijing last week to seek the Chinese government’s views on the crisis, sparking concerns about whether Beijing was interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs and fueling debate about Tung’s future.
Tien said Chinese officials had told him that the law must be passed but the timing was up to Hong Kong.
The territory was promised a high degree of autonomy after it returned to China, though critics say there has been a subtle erosion of freedoms since the end of British rule in 1997.
CLAUSES WITHDRAWN
The government tried to defuse opposition on Saturday when it withdrew clauses giving police sweeping search powers and allowing groups outlawed by Beijing to be banned in Hong Kong.
But critics want clearer definitions in the bill for treason, subversion and sedition, which would carry life jail terms.
They argue many provisions are too broad or too vague and could be used arbitrarily, although the government says the bill would be one of the most liberal national security laws in the world.
Political observers say opponents emboldened by Hong Kong’s new-found “people power” could become increasingly demanding and unyielding, fueling tension and resulting in policy paralysis, with the government unable to implement major decisions in its remaining four years in office.
“This is a time for the democrats to show restraint,” the Post said in an editorial.
“Having scored an unexpected victory, it will be tempting for them to engage in machismo politics, stepping up the attacks on Mr Tung and provoking the mainland. But they should keep calm.”
—
July 7th 2003: The bill is delayed
Article 23 Postponed!! But the Fight is Not Over.
It’s only delayed, not Scrapped.
Mr. Tung has decided that they will not try to pass the bill on the ninth. It’s good news, but he still manages to upset people because he cancelled a schedule meeting with the Democratic Party.
Just because he has delayed the passing of the bill does not mean the problem has gone away, which is how he has behaving.
The fight is not over. With the bill delayed, it does not mean it¡¦s scrapped.
It will be reintroduced and put into law at a later date. When this happens -if it’s the same as it is now. It makes no difference to our freedoms and future.
We know that some form of Article 23 will be passed. The Central Government (China) demands it. It¡¦s constantly reiterated by Tung in every ¡§speech¡¨ he makes.
The bill needs to be completely overhauled, otherwise the government have just “bought” time, and allowed the sentiments to cool.
The main factor in delaying the bill is Liberal Party Chairman James Tien resigned. He is one of Tung¡¦s cabinet members, and under the law he has to vote with the government. He¡¦s also the chairman of the Liberal Party, and his party was going to vote ¡§no¡¨ on the bill, and he said he could not vote against his own party.
Tung, realizing without the support of the Liberal Party, the bill would not pass, and thus the delay. He said it was because he listened to the people. But the statement came after an “emergency” meeting last night that ended at one am. Both the meeting and the outcome was a reaction to Mr. Tien’s resignation.
It¡¦s a shame really. I would have liked to see the bill rejected. It would be a defining moment.
But this is the beginning of the democratic movement in Hong Kong. We’ve never had a say in our governing, regardless if it was the British Colonial Government, or the Chinese Central Government.
We’ve never been on the streets for something that is our own. It’s often said that 1989 was the moment when Hong Kong people realized we had an identity outside of being a colonial hold over, which is true. I can say that it changed me in a profound way and politicized me and nearly everyone I know.
But still, we were out on the streets protesting China and supporting the students in Beijing. And not until 14 years later on July 1st 2003 did we come out again, and this time was the first time we came out and spoke for our own city and our own causes.
The truth is we deserve to rule ourselves.
—
July 8th 2003
Article 23 Update
The protest to surround Legco tomorrow is cancelled because of the delay.
It might have looked like this:
This is the back page from Next Magazine’s
“Special Edition: Historical Witness, 500 000 on the Streets”
Which had a Fold Out Poster of the Cream Pie in Tung’s Face
With the slogan “We’ve Had Enough! Protest!”
It reads:
The Passion of 6/4
Reappears on 7/1
Not Scraped 23
See You On 7/9
(Image: June 1989 Hong Kong. One million protest after the June 4th Crackdown in Beijing)
—
July 8 2003: People Power and Stupid Newscasters
Article 23 Update
On a side note. I saw the most ridiculous piece of news item on TVB Pearl English last night. It said,
¡§Now Hong Kong People Have Experienced the Power of “People Power” Will They Know How to Use it?¡¨
(Yes, they did repeat “power” twice, I suggest they try “strength” next time..)
¡§People Power¡¨ was a banner seen at the protest. The correct terms is “Public Pressure” possibly ¡§Dissention,¡¨ and taken to the most logical conclusion it is called “Democracy,”
Has Anne-Marine Sim read anything outside banners in the protest? Honestly, I think she spent more time doing her hair (it did look great), then researching for the piece.
And “How will we use it?” By having a say in our own governing.
They even interviewed some professor in City University with a very apt name of ¡§YAP.¡¨ Who said Hong Kong people will not overly take control and they will know when to back off and that ¡§People Power¡¨ will not lead to disturbances and violence. Come on! When did having a say in your government lead to violence? It tends to be NOT having a say (or perception of not having a say) that leads to violence. Yap Yap Yap..
The whole thing was a big debate around the 1997. Hong Kong people are not READY for democracy! They wouldn¡¦t know how to use it, if it¡¦s given to them. It¡¦s better to leave a bunch of privileged civil servants who all went to the same schools and graduated from University of Hong Kong to run the place!
(I know this because I grew up in a family of civil servants, and when I say “family” coz I am Chinese, I mean the whole clan.)
I would like to quote Churchill on this because he encapsulated what I think, and I couldn¡¦t say it better.
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
And right now in Hong Kong we are at the “other forms: which is so frustrating.
Yan
(I redited last night’s entry. I kinda threw it on due to a lack of time. Now the letters are in a socially agreed upon order.)
—
July 9th 2003: Protest Still On!.
Article 23 Update
NEWS ADMENTMENT:
PROTEST NOT CANCELLED. But moved.
7:30PM WEDNESDAY July 9th
CHATER GARDENS
It’s not about article 23 anymore, but on how we deserve democracy.
****
July 9th 2003: We Deserve to be Democratic Right?
Article 23 Update
We Deserve to Be Democratic Right?
I watched this documentary on TV, and they made the point that under Article 23 that any “action” that attempts to cause the “overthrow of the Communist Government” will be classified under “subversion.”
The Interviewer asked the professor if this meant something as simple as “calling for democracy” will be outlawed. And the reply was “Yes.” Just the call for Democracy, just the idea or asking for, or acting in a way that shows you are displeased with the communist government and want changes will be against the law.
Whether they will actually do anything about it, is the argument our government officials keep pressing. “We won’t be heavy handed,” is what they are saying. But we don’t believe them, and if the law is in place, it all depends on who is in charge in the future right? It could change at a moment’s notice. They drove tanks in Tianamen Square, they shot the students. So this laws means they can do that here. I don’t want it to happen here.
I started this blog because I wanted to document the steps I made with my art. It’s turned out it’s recording the changes in me, politically. It’s changed so much in just nine days. At first I was just talking about the protest, then I found myself updating the news. And suddenly, I am asking, I am saying something far bigger. I want to vote. Not just 30 seats in our legislator. I want universal suffrage.
I have never ever said, “I wanted democracy for Hong Kong” publicly until I wrote the sentence “The truth is we deserve to rule ourselves,” a few days ago at the end of an entry.
When I looked at it, it scared me. It was a scary thought to put in public. I have never heard anyone say it either. For a moment I thought I should delete as quickly as possible, I should pretend I never wrote it. It’s far too explosive, it’s too far reaching, it’s going to piss people off, or it’s going to make people not take me seriously. Whose going to listen to a girl, (a woman) who’s going off the deep end with saying she thinks Hong Kong people should rule themselves?
I am about to leave for another protest. From what I understand this one really is going to call for democracy. We’re gonna ask for it publicly. I am not sure if I understood this correctly, but I think that’s what I heard. Even if it’s “just” an anti-article 23 protest, I should be there because I don’t wan tmyself or anybody else to be put in jail one day because we “called” for democracy, or say whatever we want to say in a public forum.
I keep rewriting this entry, because I keep changing. But I need to leave now to make it to the protest. So I am leaving the second part of today’s entry as is. I am sure by the end of this evening. I will have new thoughts to add.
So here goes:
The truth is I cared, but until three days ago, I didn’t think I had a say. I constantly asked people on the July 1st Protest
“Why are you here? You know it’s not going to make a difference.”
And people kept saying, over and over again:
“Yes it will. They have to listen.” “We can make more people care.” “We can politicize people.” “We can tell the government we don’t want this.” “They will make amendments.” “Maybe we can make them realize Hong Kong people believe in free speech.” “They can’t ignore all these people, they will look so bad.” “This is the start of Hong Kong people having a say.”
And I was surprised. They had so much more belief in the system than I did.
If the question was posed to me, I would answer, “Coz I don’t like the way they think I am stupid. I know it will make no difference, but I want to stand up and be counted.”
The protest really changed me, and having 499 999 people stand next to me had a huge impact. The subsequent changes in our political climate -gave me a voice and hope. Not until Tuesday would I ever come out and say I want to rule myself. I think that privately, but I always thought I was naïve, and it was a somewhat childish dream. I don’t think that anymore. I would never have spent my time writing about it otherwise.
Then again. If things really were impossible, Sun Yat Sen would never have created a democratic society in China for the short period of time at the beginning of the last century, and we would still be ruled by the Emperor.
I live on the Sun Yat Sen Trail in Hong Kong, he went to school just up my street and actually lived on my street. But I don’t think I ever paid any attention. I must walk the whole thing soon.
And although last night, after the documentary, I felt lost. What to do now? How can I actually make a real difference, because it seems to be in the hands of “real” political people now. The actual nitty gritty of the bill. What will be included, what should be scraped.
The answer I came up with, is keep writing about this and keep doing my art. Maybe I can make a few more people believe it’s not impossible, maybe just a little difference can add up to something. Maybe if I keep hoping that we get to rule ourselves, then it’s one more person for the cause.
Maybe I am being naïve, but I was proven wrong this week. So maybe I am not.
—
I was there.
July 9th 2003 Chater Gardens
Protest For Democracy, Hong Kong.
This is the first ever protest calling for Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong,
and it is the first protest for democracy on Chinese soil since 1989 in Beijing
I just got home. One of the little dots of people is me.
—
Two of My Photos of the July 9th Protest for Democracy
—
Glutter Recap July 9th 2003. Last Entry
Article 23 Update
I Promised I Will Never Forget Tian-an-men Beijing 1990
The stairs that were ruined by tanks
Me at 16, One Year, One Month and One Day July 5th 1990
At the protest this evening,
Wan Dan Spoke through the phone to the crowds.
We are picking up after where they left off.
We are asking again.
We Continue Our Struggle for Freedom and Say
Yan Sham-Shackleton Online 