3 posts tagged “1949”

I entered Hong Kong as many of us old colonials would: with a British passport (air hair lair, what) and a falling-apart Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card (PIC).
   I did have a few problems with the latter, because it was issued in 1995, and it did not have much of the information that the new ones now contain, like your thumbprint, a photograph without a Melrose Place hairstyle and samples of my DNA contained in hermetically sealed vials of sweat, or whatever these newfangled things they have nowadays on identity cards.
   (In fact, I had problems with my British passport, notably at Waterloo Station where the passport controller insisted I was not British and had to queue up with foreigners. It was ironic that she was black and was herself practising apartheid. I had been British for longer than she had, thank you very much. The matter was ultimately raised with the PM after correspondence with the British High Commissioner, the Foreign Secretary, and the Shadow Foreign Secretary was ignored. I was going to expose all this and had some Fleet Street friends willing to aid and abet in the cause of true patriotism, but then HRH Princess Margaret went and inconveniently died on us.
   Since then, armed with this correspondence, I have not had any problems entering the United Kingdom on a British passport. I was under the impression we overseas British had the same Queen whose ‘Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance’. Funnily enough, this is respected in France and Germany, even the US where we are allies on the War on Terror, but not Britain herself. But I digress.)
   I was still let through because the PIC number matched what was noted on my passport, though the controller, a very charming lady by the name of Y. T. Chan, advised I should get the PIC changed ASAP.
   Fast forward to today. We are very law-abiding, we British, so I began checking. There’s nothing at the British High Commission site about the PIC, but the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region website does have an application form and some notes.
   The problem, as I discovered, is that Britons like me cannot get a new PIC without applying for a HKSAR passport at the same time, which entails becoming a Communist.
   And I know from experience that my definition of ‘Chinese citizen’ somehow differs from that of the Politburo politician and the Beijing bureaucrat.
   My father did not escape from the Commies in 1949 just so his son could get into bed with the Reds.
   My mother did not insist on emigrating in 1976 to avoid the perceived peril of 1997 just so her son could get into bed with the Reds.
   I am proudly Chinese. I am proud of my culture. I am proud of my heritage. But I do not believe that the chaps who came to occupy my family’s land in ’49 have much of a right to it.
   Or the chaps that overran Beijing.
   Not while the Chinese people lack self-determination, a basic requirement under the UN Charter if China wishes to call itself a state.
   Some of my family members are technically, if not willingly, communists, but it doesn’t mean I have to join them.
   All I want is to retain my nationality as a British subject and get a PIC to which I believe I am rightly entitled by my domicil of origin.
   Back in 1995, this was perfectly feasible and I was under the assumption that the Reds would continue respecting the status quo ante when it came to administrative matters like this for an uninterrupted 50 years. And since when have Hong Kongers gone and pissed off Beijing? Well, apart from every June 4?
   We have contributed quite nicely to the Pekingese capitalist public purse, and the sayings of the old Chinese profit.
   I do hope, one day, there will be a united China, possibly a commonwealth of independent states. I also hope to see self-determination by the Chinese people exercised in my lifetime. But I have zero affinity with communist régimes, anywhere in the world, and certainly won’t be looking at changing my allegiance from HM the Queen, even if modern Britain is in a mess and it gave us Gary Glitter and selected nonces. There are some of us who are proud to be old colonials, who remember what it used to mean to be British, even if it is couched in some idealist, double-decker-bus-and-cobbled-street world where John Steed could poke a baddie with his brolley—and without us colonials kowtowing to any body, thank you very much.
   And quite simply, I agree more even with a faded modern Blairbrown-shaded Britain subservient to some Brussels Bonaparte than with a totalitarian régime that did its best to try to knock some of my family off, or shove them into jail on no charge.
   There is quite a price to be paid for loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty, but there you have it. It is a choice I quite publicly make.
   Tomorrow: a visit to the High Commission to see what HM Government can do. If they even care. Let’s hope they do, more so than after the Waterloo incident.

Some nice family news: my cousin Kevin, the second-youngest of my first cousins in my mega-large family (my father is one of eight), has decided to get baptized, which I think is very positive. I was not too surprised when I got news of this today since we had had a long discussion earlier this year about Christianity.
   It’s not so much whether one supports Christianity or not, it’s more that Kevin has made a decision about his spirituality that he believes will enrich his life.
   I was around Kevin’s age when I made the decision to be baptized. I probably started off stricter than I am now in terms of my beliefs. I still live by the idea that I am against forces that ‘rebel against God’, a commitment I made.
   Our family has had plenty of reasons to put our faith in Jesus Christ: from getting us out of Red China before the peasants revolted on our land, to the recent news that my second cousin Harold survived the NIU shooting.
   As those who watched the video clips of Harold earlier this year know, he puts his survival firmly on his faith in Christ and recently was behind the Bamboo Curtain to spread the Good Word. Being a US citizen, I am sure he was better protected than a local trying to practise Christianity within the occupied part of China.
   Atheists will argue that these are simply events that happen and some luck played a part; they are perfectly free to believe that. I can’t attack them and say that their belief lacks merit. If it works for them and they aren’t harming others by their views, and they aren’t dissing alternative viewpoints, then I can live with that. Personally, I prefer to believe there is some guiding force behind it all, whether it’s the traditional view of God or a more liberal view of co-creation. It would be boring to just have “shit happen” without something grander behind the scenes.
   I can’t fathom not having a spiritual element in my life. I do have a problem with religiosity or those who use the name of any religion to hurt others. It was actually interesting to note that at our reunion, quite a few of us, who went to a church school for the formative years of our lives, are no longer Christians.
   One reason I imagine my fellow classmates turned from Christianity and now consider themselves atheists, or “spiritual” at best (one friend, not a classmate, notes ‘SBNR’—Spiritual But Not Religious) is that religion was promoted too seriously for their liking. I probably had some mild form of ADD as a child (it did not prevent me from coming first in my year each year from 1981 to 1985) coupled with having to deal with English as a second language, so maybe it never seemed to come forth with as great an authority. I had the freedom to search for my own spirituality and included what I knew from Divinity classes at school with traditional Chinese beliefs and what I learned for myself.
   Like Timothy on Vox, I have used the ‘liberal Christian’ term for myself: less Ned Flanders, more someone who has combined elements of different beliefs in line with my personal history but ultimately accepting Jesus Christ as my personal saviour. On my Facebook profile, I list ‘spiritual’ as my belief, principally because my “version” of Christianity jars with some of what is said in the weekly eucharist. While I don’t subscribe to the Da Vinci Code version of events, I do believe the Bible has been modified by people over the centuries, but I do not believe that translation errors and the like weaken its spiritual purpose. I also don’t think God is a guy who talks like Orson Welles and has a beard. Therefore, some Christians might see me as just slightly better than an atheist on some continuum!
   I once attended church weekly and ceased doing so in the 1990s. Part of it was that I came to feel that the energy was not right. My final regular church, which was actually my first church at St Mark’s where I attended school, was fine. But I had attended many over the years to discover the hypocrisy behind some Christians, enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth that they were not willing to live the life they claimed.
   Unlike those schoolmates who turned totally from Christ, I didn’t see any reason to, but I also felt that God could hear me anywhere and it didn’t need to be at a prescribed time at a prescribed place. God didn’t hang up an ‘opening hours’ sign. Religion, in my private definition, implies some level of getting together and supporting an institution, while spirituality is personal. With my evolving view on Christianity it was better to take a personal path to figure out my dharma, and that has been an adventure in itself.
   I prefer to respect that everyone is different and that we all follow different paths.
   Kevin will have his path and I will be interested to see how he follows it. I really admire this personal choice because it’s not a commitment you see every day from someone.
   Kevin: I congratulate you on taking this step and it will be my pleasure to attend your baptism.

I thought communists were more in to revisionist history than democratic governments. From the Fairfax Press:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4316159a12.html

   I am glad I got to the Republic of China to see the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial before this sort of government-sanctioned vandalism happened.
   The Democratic Progressive Party, indeed. Bit like the German Democratic Republic.
   I can’t speak for those inside the Republic but I would say that the majority of overseas Chinese will react similarly to me. Gen Chiang was not Franco or Stalin.
   The DPP calls Chiang’s Kuomingtang (KMT) repressive. I assume they have romantic notions of what was happening across the Taiwan Strait after 1949—or, for that matter, during the Sino–Japanese War.
   I am not exaggerating: in my time in Taiwan in November I met intelligent people who held beliefs that life was better under Japan than under the KMT, conveniently ignoring massacres such as the Rape of Nanking where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered.
   However, I accept that their positive ideas stem from the fact that some Japanese officials in Formosa did try to be good governors of the island.
   Back then, however, we weren’t talking about two Chinas. When 9-11 happened, it’s not as though Californians were cheery because they were comfortable, while the Twin Towers fell in New York.
   While the KMT did its share of demolishing memorials of Japanese colonialism after the war, it doesn’t make it right.
   My main view is that those of us outside need to respect the wishes of those within who participate in the Republic’s democracy. All we can realistically do from faraway keyboards is create a bit of noise when we are upset, just as we might with the War on Terror or other international matters.
   The Republic’s government also needs to know that this act insults those of us who hope that all of China will be ruled by a free and democratic republic, and whose families left because we did not believe such a China could exist under the Reds.
   Our hope was placed in the last free part of China that remained, that part in exile in Taiwan.
   Sadly, we are not voters in Republican elections. Only the inhabitants of Taiwan are.
   What now? Will a portrait of Mao be erected?
   One wishes that the DPP recognizes that it would not even exist without Chiang and the remnants of the Republican government in exile in Taiwan, but this latest incident suggests it does not.
   From an overseas Chinese view, it’s seen as an acceptance by Taipei that the Communist Party is correct across the Taiwan Strait, doing its work to erase memories that the Chinese people can have freedom.
   Indirectly, this is a slap in the face of the June 4, 1989 protesters in Tiananmen Square.
   Rebranding is something to be done carefully, more so when it comes to national monuments and symbols of national identity. Rebrands are meant to unite, not divide.
   Calling the Memorial the Democracy Memorial Hall sounds well and good on the surface—but divisions and the months of protest suggest the movement is foolhardy.
   For me, there was nothing wrong with calling it by its new name officially, while leaving the traditional lettering honouring Chiang Kai-shek’s memory intact. It was a suitable compromise and a recognition of history. It also reminds people of the freedom that Taiwan enjoys and the setting for its prosperity. Freedom, tolerance and open-mindedness are what separate it from Red China—which is still a dangerous place to visit or invest in, at least without high-level official help.
   Years after the American Civil War, there are still states (Louisiana and Tennessee) that call a certain holiday Confederate Memorial Day—and that does not seem to have harmed the Union.
   So what harm is there to retain the Chiang Kai-shek name in the interests of national unity on the island? Does the DPP seriously prefer disuniting Chinese people?
   At best, this was an ill thought through development.
   At worst, this was a desecration and an affront to traditional Chinese beliefs that memorials to the dead should be respected.
   Talk of independence or a two-China system is dangerous. It would be easy for the Politburo in Beijing to raise its voice—without even threatening violence—and Taipei can watch its stock market index fall. And I would hate to see any of my people suffer once again.
   Part of Taiwan might not know of Maoist suffering under the Reds, but I would never wish for any Taiwanese to be directly reminded of it.
   Beijing itself should not cheer at this latest development at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as it sets the stage for separatism. During 2008, with worldwide attention focused on the Olympiad, the separatist movement might think it could get away with more mischief than usual.