[updated on Sep. 4, 2016–Pleased that my favorite localists won hands down in the Legislative Council elections.]
We Are All Localists!
Originally posted on Voice of Hong Kong, MARCH 10, 2016.
With supplementary information after the commentary. See also Fishball protest.
“There are no more pan-democrats. There are only pan-localists,” Wong Wing declared on his Commercial Radio public affairs programme “Our Way Out” (人民大道中) on March 8, 2016.
I agree with his conclusion but not the rationale. Wong suggests that the pan-democrats have been forced to become localists by the dramatic rise of Edward Leung Tin-kei, a Hong Kong University student and spokesperson for Hong Kong Indigenous.
It is a common argument after the Legco by-election in New Territories East geographical constituency on February 28 that the localists have become a third force that will contend with the traditional pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps. Although Leung did not win a seat, he rose from being an unknown figure to capturing 66,524 votes or 15% of the overall votes. Alvin Yeung of Civic Party won the election with 160,880 votes, narrowly beating Holden Chow of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong who secured 150,329 votes.
As Leung is most likely to take over votes from the pan-democrats in the general Legco elections in September, Wong argues that the pan-democrats are now compelled to win back support by becoming more like the localists.
Meanwhile, three slightly older localist groups, the Civic Passion, Hong Kong Resurgence Order and Proletariat Political Institute, have declared a joint platform to field candidates in all five geographical constituencies in the general elections, scheduled for September 4. Curiously, the coalition excludes the Hong Kong Indigenous. Chin Wan of Hong Kong Resurgence Order even plans to run in New Territories East, where Edward Leung had contested.
When asked if older localist groups are harvesting from their hard-won ascendance, Edward Leung is diplomatic, expressing confidence that both he and Chin Wan could win in the multiple-seat elections.
However, a deeper question is if various self-proclaimed “localist” groups really sleep in the same bed. Edward Leung’s position is simultaneously overlapping with but also contradictory to the raison d’être of the older groups’ platform.
When it was disclosed that Edward Leung is a mainland immigrant, the pro-establishment camp sneered. This is because the older localist groups define a localist as someone who was born and raised in Hong Kong. They have aggressively campaigned against the influx of mainland immigrants.
Leung’s supporters retort that anyone who identifies with Hong Kong’s distinctive values is a localist. One’s birthplace is unimportant. After all, the Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was born in Hong Kong but has been accused of sacrificing Hong Kong’s interests. Compared with the older group’s emphasis on exclusive ethnic identity, Hong Kong Indigenous holds a more liberal and inclusive civic identity. As such, only the young localists deserve the label while the older groups should be properly called “nativists.”
All the self-labeled “localists” reject the notion that there is a split among them. Yet, if Leung has been repeatedly asked if the older groups are trying to ride on the back of their success, then these groups are probably seen as opportunistic “nativists” by Leung’s supporters and bystanders. It will be easy to confirm if the electorate sees the older groups as “localists” or “nativists”: If Chin Wan runs against Edward Leung as he said he would, then we can observe if he wins a similar vote count or if he loses by a large margin. (Dr Horace Chin Wan-kan opens district office in Tai Wai)
Once we see that there are two overlapping but divergent lines under the “localist” label, it is easy to see that the Hong Kong Indigenous is not entirely at odds with the long-standing pan-democratic camp. After all, the pan-democrats can point out that they have been fighting for the same cause: upholding Hong Kong’s separate system under “one country, two systems,” resisting China’s encroachment into Hong Kong, and preserving the city’s unique values and institutions. Indeed, resistance to “mainlandization” of Hong Kong was the key campaign theme in the last Legco elections in 2012 (see 赤的疑惑 ).
Thus, the pan-democrats are in fact “localists.” It is just that they are not “nativists.”
Non-establishment parties should form a pan-localist camp
What the “localists” have succeeded in monopolizing is the label. In politics, symbolism matters as much as substance. Wong is right that the pan-democrats should reclaim the lost ground. And the best way to do so is to form a pan-localist camp.
HKU law professor Benny Tai urges all non-establishment groups to unite against the pro-establishment camp in the general Legco elections. There should instead be a coalition of pan-localists.
There is no doubt that the pan-localists are deeply divided, especially over the wisdom of calling for Hong Kong independence and responding to police violence with violence. However, it is only by working together that they would have a chance at winning enough seats to effectively control the Legco agenda. For traditional localists, they should welcome the entry of new localists into the game play of nonviolent legislative resistance. For the new localists, they should see that taking control of Legco is a more effective means to defend Hong Kong’s interests than throwing bricks at the police (see “fishball protests“).
All hope is on the younger pan-localists. Alvin Yeung and Edward Leung seem to have developed some mutual respect during the by-election. (楊岳橋梁天琦握手) Young people declared during the umbrella movement that they were fighting for their future. Young pan-localists need to work together toward a shared future.
Both nativists and localists are celebrating the rise of localists. My observation is that we are seeing the rise of young localists but not middle-aged nativists. We can see how the nativists do vis-a-vis localists in the Sep. elections.
Chin Wan is reported to support indigenous males’s entitlement to special land rights. (鄉事組黨計劃 赫現陳雲電郵) Such minority privileges are widely objected to in HK, so that even pro-establishment parties are lukewarm about the issue. Rural forces thus decided to form their own party to press for their entitlements. See Hau Chi-keung’s party despite internal split. Chin Wan’s support just shows that he is a “nativist” rather than “localist.” He declares to be a Hakka in the letter: If he bets on Hakka votes and lineage support, then he is walking farther away from the young localists. Maybe the LSD’s critique is not too off the mark (新任社民連主席 吳文遠：本土派只問出身不問是非). (Chin Wan as the ‘First academic casualty after Occupy’: Lingnan Uni refuses to renew contract )
Curiously, Chin Wan, who now advocates “forceful resistance,” once promoted “joyous resistance” :「快樂抗爭就是懷抱歡喜心，直面痛苦，啟發思想，集結龐大民眾，以人民總量令到壓迫者畏懼，宣揚民眾的快樂生活方式而使到壓迫者愧疚而信服，從而達致彼此的解放。」 See also 杜耀明书评：在文化战场上快乐抗争–介绍陈云著《终极评论，快乐抗争》
It is worth noting that in struggles of minorities against majorities, the minority has a better chance if it tries to win sympathy from the majority. Blacks in South Africa worked hard to appeal to white Afrikans. Palestinians have tried to win support from liberal Israelis. If this is any lesson, then it could be a strategic mistake for young people to nurture mutual hatreds between Hong Kong and mainland china. Upholding civic identity and universal values would be consistent with not just HK’s existing core values, but also serves to win over liberal Chinese. See Views from China — and why don’t HK protestors reach out to mainland Chinese?
It is often argued that the pan-democrats’ primary engagement is with democracy in China while the localists give priority to democracy in HK. This is a false distinction and just shows that the “localists” have succeeded in monopolizing the discourse, complete with the label “左膠.” Why did HK people become interested in democracy in China after 1989? Remember the slogan “today’s Tiananmen, tomorrow’s HK.” Most HK people care about China only because they understand that one-party dictatorship in China would make any promises for “one country, two systems” for HK meaningless. The issue is better conceived of as a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. See RTHK series 我係乜乜乜–我係大中華膠? ; new HKU student union chair’s rejection of the 左膠 label .
I emphasize that the hope is placed on young pan-localists. Older folks have built up too much mutual hatreds for any meaningful reconciliation. Both the District Council elections and the Legco by-election show the urgent need to pass on the torch to young party members. Wong Wing also said that the best thing the Civic Party could do is to turn over the leadership to Alvin Yeung. I agree. Of course, Emily Lau and senior members of the Democratic Party should step down as well. Young people who don’t have historical baggage may be better able to form a united front.
The long-standing localists that I respect a lot are those who have been working at the grassroots level for ages, such as 小麗 who has organized democracy workshops, spoken out for the poor, and campaigned against the high-speed railway, and 朱凱迪 who has been campaigning for proper use of New Territories land and against the high-speed railway. Also Ming Gor who distributes free food to the homeless in Shum Shui Po. Could these less controversial figures bring together a united front?
An Australian artist Gregory Rivers is considered a genuine Hong Kong local: 真．香港人：河國榮; Hong Kong celebrates Gregory Rivers with top award ; 河國榮《亞視永恆》; Gregory 河國榮 Dare to dream
The pro-establishment camp’s ability to push through unpopular funding requests for the high-speed railway shows that the only way to continue the democracy struggle is to unite together to gain enough seats to control the Legco agenda.
It is today’s young people who have to map out a post-2047 Hong Kong. If they don’t overcome differences and come together, then HK will surely go down the drain.
Meanwhile, “Over 30 young individuals from various pro-democracy groups have jointly signed a declaration entitled “Resolution for Hong Kong’s Future”, stating that Hongkongers themselves should decide the political status of Hong Kong after 2047. The declaration, which was posted on Reform HK’s page on Thursday morning, was signed by pro-democracy figures acting in their personal capacity. They include Civic Party members Alvin Yeung and Tanya Chan, the Democratic Party’s Eric Lam, political science scholar Brian Fong, and social commentator Max Wong.” (Let Hongkongers decide city’s future after 2047, pro-democracy figures say; 民主派中青代發表《香港前途決議文》全文) They advocate “internal self-determination” and nonviolence.
泛民本土轉型的集結號: 自03年的7.1大遊行以來，北京便一直收緊香港的自治空間。從「一國先於兩制」、「中央授予特區多少權，特區就有多少權」、「香港沒有剩餘權力」的說法，到之後的《一國兩制白皮書》、對香港擁有「全面管治權」等，均顯示收緊、壓制是北京的長期對港方針。至於全國人大「8.31決定」，更是一次非常直白的宣示：「民主、自治？算吧！」… 既然寄望北京近乎緣木求魚，要在民主和自治的路上走下去，惟有反過來以香港為本位，立足本土，各種嘗試擺脫固有憲制框架的政治想像──反正北京總可以在自身的政治立場出發，隨時隨地「搬龍門」和「僭建」，指港人所爭取的違反《基本法》和「人大決議」。故此，繼續以北京為中心、在它的框架之下打轉，根本意義不大，倒不如提出嘗試擺脫固有憲制框架的自決論述。
On Localism (本土） vs. Nativism （排外）
In the United States: This land is our land: The current spasm of nativism is far from unique. That may be some consolation; Get off my lawn! With Western countries on high alert for terror attacks, nativist sentiment is increasing. In America, some politicians are stoking it for their own benefit
Dictionary meanings of localism at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/localism;
Dictionary meanings of nativism at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nativism?s=t
Discussions of Localism and Nativism
[The terms of localism and nativism are often mixed up, by both supporters and critics.]
Hong Kong Indigenous should change its English name if it really champions civic localism rather than ethnic nativism.
RTHK HK Connection on New Hongkongers
RTHK series on “I am…” 我係乜乜乜
New HKU student union takes a civic understanding of localism: 當被問及對本土派的看法，孫認為把香港當成自己「屋企」以及守護港人利益為先等意識「無可厚非」。(孫曉嵐 )
Why an immigrant can also be a nativist [should be localist]: Edward Leung is a living example that a nod to the city’s core values makes one a Hongkonger.
Leung: no contradiction betweeen my birth and localism 梁 天 琦 ： 出 身 與 本 土 無 衝 突
Two lines of localism: 從梁天琦背景看勇武本土派的市場區隔 : 其實主張勇武的本土陣營有兩條隊，一條隊是雙黃一陳(黃毓民、黃洋達、陳雲)系統，他們的對象是比較基層或右翼的年輕一代，其意見領袖的言論往往不留餘地，而且極右到超乎一般人想像。另一條隊以本民前為代表，賣點是形象比較四正、有理想、敢講敢做，他們的言論比較大路，其主張比較多包容空間，例如他們高舉的《香港民族論》裡面多名作者提倡的公民民族主義，即是不論血統，只論價值觀的身份劃分。…. 雙黃一陳系統自己開記招宣傳其五區公投「對準中南海的核彈」，沒有預本民前梁天琦的一份，很多人說這是收割梁天琦的民氣。不過，其實這可能只是體現了勇武本土派兩條隊的市場分隔。雙黃一陳繼續主打吸納喜歡那種言論的選民，本民前繼續sell形象和公民民族主義，兩條腿走路。
On the poverty of localism [actually nativism] 本土主義的貧困 : 我相信讀哲學的梁天琦是真誠的，認同屬於普世價值的本土核心價值…
新任社民連主席 吳文遠：本土派只問出身不問是非 [the proper target of this critique should be nativism, not localism]
從「離地本土」回歸「在地本土」: 從「離地中產」到「離地本土」: 就正如1984年的《聯合聲明》和1985年的立法局選舉，代表當年民主派作為進步力量，開始由反建制步入建制，也就意味由「在地」變得「離地」，並逐步喪失引領香港的話語權；2010 年則意味本土主義由原來的「在地」，變得愈來愈「離地」──徹底擺脫了舊社會運動的動員模式，投入完全脫離「下層建築」的新社會運動。問題卻在於，當本土主義一旦徹底擺脫「下層建築」，也就失去了凝聚社會想像的基礎──除了虛無地反抗國族和威權的制宰，卻無法指向具體社會發展的想像；除了一味訴諸民粹的情緒渲洩，也就無法總結出清晰的改革議程。… 徹底對「下層建築」的無知，意味本土主義只是一堆陳腔濫調而已。假如「離地中產泛民」無法領導香港，則「離地本土民粹」同樣無法回應當下香港的現實。現時的泛民和本土派已愈行愈遠，但在這兩個「離地」的力量之外，香港是否仍存在「在地」、立足社區和日常生活的本土主義？「在地本土」能否成為真正的「第三力量」？或許在目前眼花瞭亂的政治光譜上，這才是香港最欠缺和最必需的一環。
Can members of the pro-establishment camp be localists too?
Tsang Yok-sing of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of HK discusses localism 曾鈺成《滄浪之水》- 屈原其實是個本土派
James Tien of the Liberal Party criticizes CY Leung 田北俊批梁振英倘連任難和諧 損一國兩制前途 ; James Tien says Chief Executive CY Leung is ‘ruining’ Hong Kong
Finance Secretary John Tsang Puts A ‘Localist’ Touch In 2016/17 Budget; his blog: 香港作為一個移民城市，像我這種因着人生偶然，在香港出生、成長，然後往返於世界各處的例子實在多不勝數，甚至可說是一種香港常態。這些人不論是來自廣東、上海、福建抑或國內其他地方，都可以帶着自己的文化、方言、信仰和生活習慣，安然在香港落地生根，不同的生活形式在香港兼收并蓄，使我們的文化變得更加豐富。所謂「香港人」這個身分，亦因着這個背景而成為一個流動而立體的概念，無論你是「潮州佬」、「上海婆」抑或「台山阿伯」，會否講純正的廣東話、吃廣東菜、唱廣東歌，都不會成為一個人作為「香港人」的障礙。今天社會上有一種聲音，嘗試將「香港人」這個身分作出教條式的定義，強要辨別誰「是/不是香港人」，忽略了香港社會長久以來的多元本質…
More on Tsang and Tien.
Christopher Chung, a pro-regime DAB legislator, tries to claim localism ：「月是故鄉明要本土不要分離」[picture]
However, the pro-establishment camp are not friendly to South Asians and “fake refugees” 「本土建制」試圖消滅多元香港
Localists boycott the June 4 Candle Light Vigil at Victoria Park
Organisers say 125,000 attended Victoria Park Tiananmen vigil, despite boycott: young activists from the new “localist” movement say Hong Kong should push for its own autonomy, even independence, rather than the democratisation of the mainland, which is part of the vigil’s main message.
My favorite localist 小麗 argues that insistence on remembrance of June 4 is a powerful force for HK people:
Surveys show that participants at the candle light vigils have increasingly localist concerns with little fixation on democratization in China (支聯會、本土派不了解的維園六四晚會):
On the Legco by-election in New Territories East and the general elections in September
Winners And Losers Of Legco By-Election: Alvin Yeung and the Civic Party: At 34, Yeung has emerged as a young high-flier in the Civic Party and the pan-democratic camp. Faced with a Beijing-backed election machinery and caught between the mainstream and radical factions in the camp, it is almost impossible for him to find a balance among various factions and win the seat. Yeung has managed to do so with humility, maturity and far-sightedness, in particular in his mildly positive remarks on Edward Leung’s challenge. That will prove to be an important quality for him to play a role in forging dialogue with the radical localist groups.
The fishball protests forced Yeung to fight on two fronts: the clashes in Mong Kok less than a week before the by-election were widely regarded as an advantage for the DAB because of the tide of public opinion against the violence. Despite the fact that pan-democrats quickly dissociated themselves from the instigators of the violence and denounced it, most commentators predicted that the clashes might take their toll on the Civic Party if it resulted in undecided moderate voters being put off. Also, Alvin Yeung was fighting a war on two fronts. He was simultaneously up against the pro-establishment camp and the indigenous faction, more often known as the “valour faction” in the wake of the Mong Kok clashes.
The bookish-looking Edward Leung did better than expected. He took over support for radical democrats. 梁天琦表現出色 但選民給票不等同支持暴力 ; The rise and rise of Hong Kong Indigenous ; 梁天琦說：我不想失敗，我想贏 ; 何以梁天琦在廿日成為傳奇？ ; 大公報 評論讚梁天琦 ; 我從梁天琦身上看到了希望 ; 三分天下雖未成型 本土派已穩佔一位
Edward Leung took votes at public housing estates 梁天琦票從何來？: 三套分析中我覺得最能左右選情的是人口特徵，從分析所見似乎富裕階級難以接納梁天琦的激進本土路線。與傳統泛民不同，本土派不喜歡講「入屋論」，他們認為只需掌握關鍵少數的支持自己就足夠，無需要面面俱圓，也不需要感召最多的群眾支持自己。最少今次的選舉反映，梁天琦可以獲低下被壓迫階層的關鍵社群支持。而這批受壓一群，亦是現存的「激進泛民」及部分建制派的支持者，九月票源重疊之下可能引發的後果實在難以預料。Also 66,524票從何而來？; 梁天琦票從何來？ 一個票站數據分析. 選後分析：楊保溫和基本盤 本土奪大部分激進票:
本土派搶票 公民黨立選危危乎: 香港研究協會今(10日)公布新界東補選跟進民調，發現410名受訪新界東選民中，35%人投票是為懲罰某候選人、政團或派別的立場。至於投給梁天琦的受訪者，有25%人是人力或社民連的支持者，但意外的是，有19%人是公文袋支持者，顯示有支持者不滿楊岳橋或嫌棄公文袋立場而轉投梁天琦。不過，有38%投給梁天琦的受訪者是「其他政團」的支持者，反映現有傳統泛民政黨未能代表他們，意味成為激進本土派的鐵票。
Localists will most likely gain a seat in the general Legco elections.
It is welcoming that HKI is interested in and successful at running elections 本民前相信「以武制暴」，但社會輿論仍反對暴力，梁天琦隨即反駁：「輿論有用咩？」更以美國獨立做例子，指要帶來真正改變往往靠少數人「喺前面衝」。他指香港獨立值得一場公投，但被問及公投理念與「少數人帶領」相違背，梁就指「所以我咪走出嚟參選」，出選是為希望強化香港人主體意識。(梁 天 琦 ： 出 身 與 本 土 無 衝 突)
Scholarism became Demosisto, Joshua Wong is now considered too moderate/mainstream : Why Occupy student leaders are losing touch with the public ; 從半神到罪人－從黃之鋒隕落到香港政局轉變
Radical democrats are likely to splinter the most. Long Hair is getting the hardest hit after criticizing Edward Leung for feeding voters with “human blood buns” (梁國雄：革命作幌子吸票如食「人血饅頭」). Radical democrats have the strongest incentive to coordinate in the general Legco elections: 反對陣營的重新洗牌 — 一種本土意識、兩條本土路線 ; 社民連、人力為自保 擬協調「進步民主派」出選名單 ; 【蔡子強．新東補選初步簡評】五大啟示: 本土派今次的突出表現與士氣大振，卻可能反過來為他們九月參選帶來隱憂，因為受到今次補選結果鼓舞，激進和本土政團勢將不斷湧現和參選。以新界東為例，上屆有社民連、人民力量、新民主同盟三隊；今屆卻極有可能倍增，如本土民主前線、熱血，甚至是其餘的傘後組織，以及同是爭取年青選民的學民新黨。結果或會是嚴重攤薄了選票，就算以兩成五的選票份額來計，也未必夠這些激進和本土政團來瓜分，隨時會「攬炒」。
And it doesn’t take long for the “localists” to splinter. Some are grouping together without HKI: Localist groups announce action plan for Sept LegCo election as CY urged to reflect on by-election result: The groups, including Civic Passion, Hong Kong Resurgence Order and Proletariat Political Institute, said on Monday that they would nominate someone shortly for September’s race. They said the theme of their platform would be: “Creating a de facto referendum in five constituencies; allow all citizens to participate in the creation of constitution”. …. The coalition, however, did not include Hong Kong Indigenous, whose candidate Edward Leung Tin-kei ran for the by-election on Sunday.
Umbrella troops are forming a coalition: 傘兵結盟揚言發動前途公投「唔使十年」 社民人力為選舉復合
Lawmaker warns Beijing may welcome ‘fragmentation’ of pan-democratic camp, as new party launches ; 今次泛民的得票率則遜於上屆，可見本土派的崛起，未有將整個泛民光譜的基本支持明顯擴大，溫和泛民的支持者亦未見明顯增長。(本土派崛起 泛民的餅有否做大？)
Rural indigenous population are forming their party 或可於直選取4席 侯志強視長毛范國威為對手
A recent survey by the Chinese University of Hong Kong showed that 8.4 percent of the 1,012 respondents consider themselves as localists, while 31.9 percent as mild democrats. (How govt will try to bar pro-independence candidates from Legco)
多少市民自認屬本土派？ 3月調查研究的結果: 在今次3月的調查中，有超過8％的市民自認屬本土派，自稱激進民主派的只有不足3％。最多人選擇的仍是溫和民主派，有32％左右。選擇3個代表建制陣營的標誌的被訪者，加起來有14％左右，而自稱中間派或無政治取向的市民，加起來超過四成。… 8％是一個絕不可以忽視的數字。如果我們再以年齡劃分，就會更清晰地見到本土派冒起的勢頭。表2顯示，在45歲或以上的各年齡層，選擇本土派的市民比例只有2至3個百分點，在30至44歲的市民當中，本土派支持者有6％，但在18至29歲的市民中，選擇本土派的有接近30％，跟溫和民主派的39％差不多可以分庭抗禮了。 不過也要補充一句，年輕人其實並不特別抗拒溫和民主派。在數據上，溫和民主派的支持者比例，在18至29歲的市民之中甚至是最高的。年輕人的特點是極少建制派支持者，也比上幾代香港人少選擇中間派或回答無政治取向。(Below charts come from the same Ming Pao story)
HK Indigenes agrees that the majority of HK people would be happy with genuine universal suffrage without independence (新聞透視 本土與港獨 at 21:50)
See 本土派拒協調 稱各有分工 選戰倡自決 學者料「多敗俱傷」with graphics:
Benny Tai believes that the violent protests make it even more imperative for non-establishment parties to work together in the general Legco elections. If top-down coordination fails, voters should organize from the bottom-up. (18傘後組織撐戴耀廷 「雷動聲吶」蒐選民意向 ; 戴耀廷：旺角騷亂後 「雷動計劃」必須實行; 戴耀廷指「本土」已成政治力量 泛民須協調 提改良版「雷動計劃」; 學加拿大 由下而上踢走保皇黨 ; 雷動計劃 尋5萬雷霆救兵)
Kevin Lau’s letter to pro-umbrella Christians: 給黃絲帶信徒的書信 : 對於黃絲帶信徒，書信的內容可能是這樣：「你們具有敏銳的良知，恨惡社會上各種不公義，這也是上帝恨惡的。你們具有無比的勇氣，敢於挑戰權貴，質疑官商勾結。你們洞察造物主的智慧，懂得發展不是硬道理，不能為發展犧牲自然環境和人文歷史。你們具有知行合一的決斷，既知道僵化的社會制度急需改革，便願意站出來大聲吶喊，以持續的行動表達訴求，喚醒沉睡的公眾。你們的熱忱和為此承受的委屈，上帝都知道，你們為夢想流的眼淚，上帝已用皮袋保存。」「然而，有一件事需要責備你們，就是你們離棄了生命之道，把靈魂出賣給仇恨，容讓各種惡毒的心思意念滋長，縱容你們的舌頭肆意謾罵你們眼中的敵人，包括許多無辜的單純履行職務的執法者或公務員，將他們一竹篙打成妖魔，標籤他們為黑警、走狗。對於那些因長時間對峙失去理性，錯誤濫用武力對待你們的人，你們在依法抗爭維權之上，加插以暴易暴，公然鼓吹報復，無視上帝說伸冤在我，無視基督說愛你的仇敵。你們不單自己被仇恨佔據，並鼓勵你們的同路人，包括那些比你們更年幼的孩子，用仇恨的眼光看一切內地居民，憎惡蔑視一切官員和警員，包括那些同樣持守基督真道的弟兄。你們以為自己走在時代的尖端，以為革命的邏輯可以合理化一切暴力與仇恨，殊不知離棄了愛的就棄離了生命，你們當中除了少數不被仇恨沾污衣裳的人，都已變成雖生猶死的人。」(給香港教會的兩封信)
It is noteworthy that young people continue to have lower voting rates than older generations: 即使在雨傘運動之後的2015年區議會選舉，年輕人投票率出現強勁增長，但18至30歲年輕選票也只是佔全港整體選票數目的12.74%；即使以18至40歲來計，也只是24.75%，仍然低於61歲以上長者的33.12%。(年輕選票在選舉中所起的影響 with graphics below)
Analyses of HK’s identity
Rise of HK-centered history : 歷史的補白: 香港人從哪裏來? 所謂「自古以來」的香港，是具備什麼特質的一處地方? 在本土意識冒起的時代，年輕一輩念茲在茲「我是誰」的問題，當他們埋首歷史尋找答案，竟發現歷史書上的冒點處處:二戰的事蹟，為何甚少提到華藉士兵的功勞？香港人是否從來都「討厭政治」?六十年代主張「自治」的政黨，為何沒有被編進主流歷史書? 新一代不希望再當歷史的旁觀者，決心找回香港人在歷史脈絡中的身位。
RTHK HK Connection on anti-mainlandization as the key campaign theme in 2012: 赤的疑惑
Self identification by HK people since 1997 (SCMP)
HK Connection on Activism on the Rise
15 Years of “One Country, Two Systems” : http://podcast.rthk.hk/podcast/item_epi.php?pid=280&lang=en-US&id=24526 and http://podcast.rthk.hk/podcast/item_epi.php?pid=280&lang=en-US&id=24528
Ho-fung Hung assesses Three Views of Local Consciousness in Hong Kong, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 12, Issue 43, No. 1, November 3, 2014. [Chan, Koon-chung. 2012. Zhongguo tianchao zhuyi yu Xianggang (China’s Heavenly Doctrine and Hong Kong). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Chin Wan. 2011. Xianggang Chengbang lun (On Hong Kong as a city state). Hong Kong: Enrich Publishing. Jiang Shigong. 2008. Zhongguo Xianggang: wenhua yu zhengzhi de shiye (China’s Hong Kong: cultural and political perspectives). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.]
Sebastian Veg, “Hong Kong’s Enduring Identity Crisis,” The Atlantic, 10/16/2013. ()
Brian C. H. Fong, State-Society Conflicts under Hong Kong’s Hybrid Regime: Governing Coalition Building and Civil Society Challenges, Asian Survey, Vol. 53, No. 5 (September/October 2013), pp. 854-882
On Hong Kong’s core values and freedoms and their erosions
Deng Xiaoping said when announcing the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984: We should have faith in the Chinese of Hong Kong, who are quite capable of administering their own affairs. The notion that Chinese cannot manage Hong Kong affairs satisfactorily is a leftover from the old colonial mentality . . . We are convinced that the people of Hong Kong are capable of running the affairs of Hong Kong well. (Hong Kong and the Demise of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ )