| 發表文章 | 發起投票 |
【香港民族黨於日本出席學術研討會之報告：關於中國殖民的幾點觀察】
【主權在民是民主的必要條件】
民主，必先主權在民。主權是一個國際法概念，是國家之間互不干涉的基礎──一國主權範圍內之事，他國不應干涉。但這亦同時說明，當一地方之主權操於某一國家之手，該國家就可藉「主權」之名決定該地方的政事，而此權力甚至可凌駕任何所謂自治、民主原則。如果該地方之人民能與該國的國民共享主權還好，但當一地之民並非挾其主權的國家的主權來源，則該地屬字面意義上的殖民地。
根據學者史書美所言，「中國」（假定這概念於十七世紀或以前已經存在）在近代史上是一個殖民者，只是一般人慣性以歐洲海洋殖民作為殖民的範式，才忽略中國作為殖民者的事實1。自十七世紀以來，管治現時中國國土的政權，其實是周邊地區（包括蒙古、新疆、西藏等）的殖民者。最諷刺的事，在二十世紀的全球反殖浪潮背景下，中華人民共和國成立以來中國政權對相關地區的殖民比上幾個世紀更為猖獗。種族不平等政策、文化侵略、人口清洗等，時至今日仍時刻發生。
但與歐洲的對外殖民不同，當代中國的殖民，乃在「中華民族」此概念工具下進行。透過操弄「中華民族」此概念，建立「中華民族」的正統──漢族、普通話、簡化字──並將各殖民地的人口、文化和語言打為「中華民族」的旁支，一邊進行字面意義上的殖民，一邊卻以民族的「正統－旁支」禁制人們將這種權力關係認知為殖民（因為人們假定同一民族內成員的關係不會是殖民關係）。有香港本地論者認為這是一種「二重殖民」，實質上的殖民統治外同時以「中華民族」的概念進行「認知殖民」2。這解釋了為何輿論甚少從殖民的角度探討中國與被其操控主權的地區的關係。
中華人民共和國是一個公認的獨裁國家。主權一日被獨裁國家操控，該地區一日也不可能有真正的民主，而只能當獨裁國家的殖民地。香港今年的立法會選舉就是最有力的例子。香港的立法機關有一半議席是由民主選舉產生，然而，在今年的立法會選舉中，主張香港獨立的參選人被禁止參選；更甚者，於11月7日中華人民共和國更藉其主權「解釋」香港的憲法，以取消民選議員的當選資格。事件足以證明，在獨裁國家的主權之下，民主選舉的過程和結果皆可隨時被干預，喪失選舉的真正意義。
因此，單是中華人民共和國操控包括南蒙古、新疆、西藏、香港在內的周邊地區主權本身，就已是有違國際法中erga omnes、 普世價值和現代人類文明的殖民劣行3。推動反殖運動、敵視和驅逐殖民者是每一個被殖民地區人民的權利，而服膺普世價值的國際文明國家，亦應出於捍衛erga omnes不被違反的國際法責任而支持上述反殖運動。在個人層面，面對資訊和認知被「中華民族」的概念扭曲，我們可以做的是推動輿論，令更多人認清中華人民共和國是一個帝國主義殖民國家的事實。
結束中華人民共和國的殖民，讓每一個被殖民的地區人民和民族重奪自身土地的主權，是建立民主、自由、平等的國度的必要條件。
【面對「中華民族」殖民的困局和應對】
「中華民族」之所以是惡毒的殖民概念工具，很大程度上是因為「中國性」（Chinese-ness）的含意模糊不清，令「中國」一詞可被殖民者刻意操弄，掩飾殖民的事實。敝黨黨員曾在敝黨刊物《眾議》的文章中，用「中國人」和「華人」為例子解釋這種操弄：
「『中國人』，不單指國籍，也不單指種族。在中華人民共和國政權的有意操作下，『中國人』是一套血統論述：只要一個人的血緣與地域上的『中國』有任何連繫，該人就可被認知為一個『中國人』，不論其國籍、母語、文化認同。而一旦被認定為『中國人』，則其正統和根源就需要是地域上的中國。『華僑』和『籍貫』的概念，正是一個令國籍、母語、文化認同皆非中國的華人，覺得自己的根源在地域上的中國的手段：他只是『僑居』『國外』，與父祖一樣仍是中國人。」4
中華人民共和國一方面借「中華民族」的概念殖民——被殖民地區的人民都被強行當作「中華民族」的一員——一方面亦將被殖民地區的人民打為「中華民族」的旁支，貶抑其語言、文化的地位，以此合理化中華人民共和國以漢族對該些地區進行人口和語言清洗。
另外，還有一個看似不相關但其實是上述殖民幫兇的概念：「華人離散」，Chinese Diaspora。「離散」的概念源於猶太人在以色列立國前一直沒有自己的國家，有感多個世紀以來彷彿只能在別人的國家中「飄泊」。但按廿一世紀的標準，這種觀念其實是假定一個種族 （不是民族） 應有一個國家，並以此國家為根，當中的狹隘種族政治觀念根本不符普世價值。偏偏一些學者就將離散的概念應用於華人，妄自假定華人這個種族應以中華人民共和國所統治的土地為根，視居於中國以外的華人為「海外華人」、「華僑」，仍屬「中華民族」的旁支。
透過為「中華民族」製造不同的旁支，「中國性」的含意就更加模糊。「中華民族」和「中國性」的含意越模糊，就越有助統攝所謂「少數民族」為「中華民族」的另一旁支，以便中華人民共和國挾中華正統之名合理化其對這些「少數民族」的殖民。
我們認為，要對抗中華人民共和國的殖民，不能忽略思想層面的工作。建立並鞏固以帝國主義和殖民主義看待中華人民共和國與其領土之關係的範式和論述，是打破其殖民的關鍵。在武裝革命越來越難的當代，讓被殖民的人認清自己正被殖民，同時令國際社會皆明白較上幾個世紀更惡劣、更具破壞性的中國殖民正在發生，對建立反殖的力量和意志最為重要。中華人民共和國告訴我們，現在根本不是「後殖民時代」，對包括蒙古、新疆、西藏和香港在內的多個民族來說，現在是比歐美殖民時代更黑暗的中國殖民時代。我們的反殖運動，是現在進行式。
1. Shih, Shu-mei (2011), “The Concept of the Sinophone”, PMLA 126.3, 709–718
2. quenthai (2015), “中華民族主義對香港的二重殖民”, <https://quenthai.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/dual_colonisation/>
3.有關國際法中erga omnes的解釋，可參閱James Crawford (2012), Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th Edn), pp.578-580
4. 啟琪 (2016), "衝破無理延伸的中國殖民霸權", 眾議 1 12-19, 頁13
【Report on the Hong Kong National Party 's Attendance at a Symposium in Japan：Observations on Chinese Colonialism】
【Only a sovereign people may attain democracy】
The foundation of democracy is the demos, the people, and not just any people, but a sovereign people, that is, a people that holds its own sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty is most commonly found in international law, as the formless borders between nations, beyond which any foreign powers should be powerless. By the same vein, whoever controls a land’s sovereignty, controls its people, its politics, and its fate. Such power overrides any concerns of self-determination or principles of democracy. When a people’s sovereignty is held by a foreign nation, then, by all means and purposes, that land is a colony.
As Prof Shih Shu-mei has claimed, (assuming the concept of “China” has existed since the 17th Century or before,) “China” has long been acting as a coloniser in modern history. The European model of colonisation, being widely held to be the paradigm of colonialism, meant that China also being a coloniser is an oft-ignored fact.1 Ever since the 17th Century, the rulers of what we call now the Chinese land were, in fact, colonisers of their surrounding regions: the regions of Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet. Most ironic of all, as we step into the 20th Century with the trend of anti-colonialism going around the world, these regions only suffered severer and more rampant colonial oppression from the hands of the People’s Republic of China. Policies of racial inequality, cultural invasion, and shameless population cleansing are still, to this day, happening in these regions.
Different from the European brand of colonialism, the Chinese method operates under the banner of the “Chung-wah Ethnic” (中華民族, literally “the Ethnic of Chinese”). Putting forward the invention of this “Chung-wah Ethnic”, the Chinese colonisers forced upon everyone a set of “Ethnical Orthodoxy”: the Han race, Mandarin Chinese, and the Simplified Chinese characters. With this “orthodoxy”, the Chinese colonisers demoted the populations, cultures, and languages of those being colonised as the minor, inferior branches of this “Chung-wah Ethnic”. Thus the colonisers would claim to be blood brothers with those who are being colonised, and at the same time put them in chains as inferior peoples. Since all these peoples are part of the same “Chung-wah Ethnic” as the Chinese colonisers do, the colonisers would say, it is impossible that they are actually colonising, because the same ethnic cannot colonise its own self! There is a commentator in Hong Kong who name this a form of “Double Colonisation”, as not only are you being physically colonised in your land, but your very being, your identity, is also being “Consciously Colonised” into the “Chung-wah Ethnic”.2 This assimilation of the mind explains why it is so uncommon that anybody would view the relationship between China and her subjugated territories under the light of colonialism.
The People’s Republic of China is doubtlessly an authoritarian state. And as long as a land’s sovereignty is being held by a foreign authoritarian state, that land can only remain a colony, and never attain real democracy. The election of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council this year is the best example of this. Half of the seats of Hong Kong’s legislature are selected via democratic elections, and yet, candidates advocating Hong Kong Independence were banned from running in the election this year. On 7th November, the People’s Republic of China even took the step to use its sovereignty over Hong Kong to issue an “interpretation” of Hong Kong’s constitution, forcibly removing several of our elected representatives from the legislature. All of this shows us that, under the sovereign fist of an authoritarian state, any process and result of democratic elections can be overwritten at any time – the demos, the people, has no actual power to enforce its democracy.
It is for this simple reason alone, that the control by the People’s Republic of China of the sovereignty of its surrounding regions, including Southern Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, is sufficiently an act of colonisation that infringes upon such international law obligations as erga omnes, and the universal values of modern civilisation.3 To advocate for anti-colonialism, champion its social movement, and repelling the colonisers is the right of every people currently being colonised; likewise, it is the duty of every civilised nation, espousing the universal values, to defend those international law duties which are erga omnes by supporting such anti-colonialist movements. For the ordinary man and woman on the street, their duty is to shape and guide the public opinion to turn from the false invention of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”, and let more people realise how the People’s Republic of China is, in fact, not a nation state, but a colonial empire.
With the end of the PRC’s colonisation comes the liberation of all peoples and races, when we can all have our own sovereignty back in our hands – this is the foundation upon which a democratic, free, and equal nation can be built.
【Colonisation by the “Chung-wah Ethnic” – the Confusion, the Bondage, and the Solution】
The toxicity of the “Chung-wah Ethnic” as a political tool for colonial slavery is due to its confused definition – the meaning of “Chinese” and “Chinese-ness” are manifold, complex, overlapping, and sometimes self-contradictory. Without a clear definition of what “Chinese” is, it becomes laughably easy for the coloniser to control the narrative, and hide the fact that they are enslaving other peoples and nations. A member of the Hong Kong National Party once wrote, commenting on the intentional confusion of the terms “Chinese-person” (中國人) and “Wah-person” (華人) (both can in English be loosely referred to as “Chinese”):
A “Chinese Person” is not just “Chinese” by his nationality, nor by his race. Under the manipulation of the People’s Republic of China, a “Chinese Person” is a “Chinese Person” because of his blood and kinship: any person, whose kinship can be associated or connected with the geographical “China” in any form at all, could be deemed as a “Chinese Person”, regardless of his nationality, his mother tongue, or his culture. And once a person is deemed to be a “Chinese Person”, then his ultimate origin would be automatically transferred to the geographical “China”. The concepts of “Overseas Chinese” and “Ancestral Homes” are then, precisely, political manoeuvrers to make persons, whose nationality, mother tongue, and culture are all non-Chinese, to think and act as if he is ultimately a “Chinese Person” - he is simply a guest or foreigner who happens to be temporarily staying overseas; ultimately, he is just as much a “Chinese Person” as his grandfather.
Not only does the People’s Republic of China strengthen its colonial hold via the concept of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”, forcibly identifying those being colonised as part of this “Chung-wah Ethnic”, but at the same time it puts those being colonised under an inferior sub-section of this “Chung-wah Ethnic”. The native languages and cultures are said to be local, exotic, and most importantly, not as orthodox as the official Han standard’s language and culture. With this, the PRC rationalises its cleansing the population and language of the subjugated peoples.
It is here that I must mention a seemingly unrelated but, in fact, accomplice to the invention of ““Chung-wah Ethnic”: the idea of the “Chinese Diaspora”. The concept of a “diaspora” is originated with the Jews who, before the founding of Israel, lacked a homeland and a home nation. For centuries they felt as if they were vagabonds in other people’s nations, and thus they called this situation a “diaspora”, or a scattering of seeds. Looking with the 21st Century standard, this concept assumes that every race (here not meaning a national or ethnical people) should have its own country and state, and that this shall be the race’s eternal homeland, a sort of root. The sort of racial politics involved in this “diaspora” concept is, clearly, incompatible with our modern universal values. And yet some scholars, even today, would apply this “diaspora” label to the “Wah-person” and the “Chinese-person”, with the implication that this race should have the land of the PRC as its eternal root and home. With thus, all “Wah-person” who lives outside the geographical boundaries of China are deemed to be “Overseas Chinese” - another inferior branch under the umbrella of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”.
With all these difference branches of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”, the definition of “Chinese-ness” becomes ever the more confused and confusing. And the more confusing the idea of “Chinese-ness” is, the easier it is to incorporate the so-called “Ethnic Minorities” under the umbrella of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”. All of this is done for one purpose: to rationalise and legitimise the People’s Republic of China’s colonisation of these “Ethnic Minorities”.
We of the Hong Kong National Party believe that, in fighting against such systematic and ruthless Chinese colonialism, we must not neglect the anti-colonial work done in our own minds, in purifying our thoughts of these intentionally confusing Chinese-invented colonial ideas. Constructing and reinforcing the set of discourse that uses the lenses of imperialism and colonialism to perceive, understand and explain the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and its territories is the key to breaking the chains of colonial captivity. In our age when it is becoming more and more difficult to stage a revolution by military force, it is more fruitful to awaken the colonised to the fact that they are being colonised, and to let the international community know, with certainty, that a form of Chinese colonialism, more heinous and more devastating than that which happened in the past centuries, is now underway. The very existence of the People’s Republic of China is testament that we do not live in any sort of “Post-Colonial World”. To all of us national peoples of Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, we live in an age far darker and more dreadful than the age of European and American colonialism. We live in the Age of Chinese Colonialism, and our anti-colonialist movements are in motion as we speak.
1. Shih, Shu-mei (2011), “The Concept of the Sinophone”, PMLA 126.3, 709-718
2. Quenthai (2015), “中華民族主義對香港的二重殖民” [Hong Kong’s Double Colonisation under the Zhonghua Race], <https://quenthai.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/dual_colonisation/>
3. For the concept of erga omnes under international law, see James Crawford (2010), Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th Edn), pp. 578-580
https://www.facebook.com/hknationalparty/posts/567874950078130
民主，必先主權在民。主權是一個國際法概念，是國家之間互不干涉的基礎──一國主權範圍內之事，他國不應干涉。但這亦同時說明，當一地方之主權操於某一國家之手，該國家就可藉「主權」之名決定該地方的政事，而此權力甚至可凌駕任何所謂自治、民主原則。如果該地方之人民能與該國的國民共享主權還好，但當一地之民並非挾其主權的國家的主權來源，則該地屬字面意義上的殖民地。
根據學者史書美所言，「中國」（假定這概念於十七世紀或以前已經存在）在近代史上是一個殖民者，只是一般人慣性以歐洲海洋殖民作為殖民的範式，才忽略中國作為殖民者的事實1。自十七世紀以來，管治現時中國國土的政權，其實是周邊地區（包括蒙古、新疆、西藏等）的殖民者。最諷刺的事，在二十世紀的全球反殖浪潮背景下，中華人民共和國成立以來中國政權對相關地區的殖民比上幾個世紀更為猖獗。種族不平等政策、文化侵略、人口清洗等，時至今日仍時刻發生。
但與歐洲的對外殖民不同，當代中國的殖民，乃在「中華民族」此概念工具下進行。透過操弄「中華民族」此概念，建立「中華民族」的正統──漢族、普通話、簡化字──並將各殖民地的人口、文化和語言打為「中華民族」的旁支，一邊進行字面意義上的殖民，一邊卻以民族的「正統－旁支」禁制人們將這種權力關係認知為殖民（因為人們假定同一民族內成員的關係不會是殖民關係）。有香港本地論者認為這是一種「二重殖民」，實質上的殖民統治外同時以「中華民族」的概念進行「認知殖民」2。這解釋了為何輿論甚少從殖民的角度探討中國與被其操控主權的地區的關係。
中華人民共和國是一個公認的獨裁國家。主權一日被獨裁國家操控，該地區一日也不可能有真正的民主，而只能當獨裁國家的殖民地。香港今年的立法會選舉就是最有力的例子。香港的立法機關有一半議席是由民主選舉產生，然而，在今年的立法會選舉中，主張香港獨立的參選人被禁止參選；更甚者，於11月7日中華人民共和國更藉其主權「解釋」香港的憲法，以取消民選議員的當選資格。事件足以證明，在獨裁國家的主權之下，民主選舉的過程和結果皆可隨時被干預，喪失選舉的真正意義。
因此，單是中華人民共和國操控包括南蒙古、新疆、西藏、香港在內的周邊地區主權本身，就已是有違國際法中erga omnes、 普世價值和現代人類文明的殖民劣行3。推動反殖運動、敵視和驅逐殖民者是每一個被殖民地區人民的權利，而服膺普世價值的國際文明國家，亦應出於捍衛erga omnes不被違反的國際法責任而支持上述反殖運動。在個人層面，面對資訊和認知被「中華民族」的概念扭曲，我們可以做的是推動輿論，令更多人認清中華人民共和國是一個帝國主義殖民國家的事實。
結束中華人民共和國的殖民，讓每一個被殖民的地區人民和民族重奪自身土地的主權，是建立民主、自由、平等的國度的必要條件。
【面對「中華民族」殖民的困局和應對】
「中華民族」之所以是惡毒的殖民概念工具，很大程度上是因為「中國性」（Chinese-ness）的含意模糊不清，令「中國」一詞可被殖民者刻意操弄，掩飾殖民的事實。敝黨黨員曾在敝黨刊物《眾議》的文章中，用「中國人」和「華人」為例子解釋這種操弄：
「『中國人』，不單指國籍，也不單指種族。在中華人民共和國政權的有意操作下，『中國人』是一套血統論述：只要一個人的血緣與地域上的『中國』有任何連繫，該人就可被認知為一個『中國人』，不論其國籍、母語、文化認同。而一旦被認定為『中國人』，則其正統和根源就需要是地域上的中國。『華僑』和『籍貫』的概念，正是一個令國籍、母語、文化認同皆非中國的華人，覺得自己的根源在地域上的中國的手段：他只是『僑居』『國外』，與父祖一樣仍是中國人。」4
中華人民共和國一方面借「中華民族」的概念殖民——被殖民地區的人民都被強行當作「中華民族」的一員——一方面亦將被殖民地區的人民打為「中華民族」的旁支，貶抑其語言、文化的地位，以此合理化中華人民共和國以漢族對該些地區進行人口和語言清洗。
另外，還有一個看似不相關但其實是上述殖民幫兇的概念：「華人離散」，Chinese Diaspora。「離散」的概念源於猶太人在以色列立國前一直沒有自己的國家，有感多個世紀以來彷彿只能在別人的國家中「飄泊」。但按廿一世紀的標準，這種觀念其實是假定一個種族 （不是民族） 應有一個國家，並以此國家為根，當中的狹隘種族政治觀念根本不符普世價值。偏偏一些學者就將離散的概念應用於華人，妄自假定華人這個種族應以中華人民共和國所統治的土地為根，視居於中國以外的華人為「海外華人」、「華僑」，仍屬「中華民族」的旁支。
透過為「中華民族」製造不同的旁支，「中國性」的含意就更加模糊。「中華民族」和「中國性」的含意越模糊，就越有助統攝所謂「少數民族」為「中華民族」的另一旁支，以便中華人民共和國挾中華正統之名合理化其對這些「少數民族」的殖民。
我們認為，要對抗中華人民共和國的殖民，不能忽略思想層面的工作。建立並鞏固以帝國主義和殖民主義看待中華人民共和國與其領土之關係的範式和論述，是打破其殖民的關鍵。在武裝革命越來越難的當代，讓被殖民的人認清自己正被殖民，同時令國際社會皆明白較上幾個世紀更惡劣、更具破壞性的中國殖民正在發生，對建立反殖的力量和意志最為重要。中華人民共和國告訴我們，現在根本不是「後殖民時代」，對包括蒙古、新疆、西藏和香港在內的多個民族來說，現在是比歐美殖民時代更黑暗的中國殖民時代。我們的反殖運動，是現在進行式。
1. Shih, Shu-mei (2011), “The Concept of the Sinophone”, PMLA 126.3, 709–718
2. quenthai (2015), “中華民族主義對香港的二重殖民”, <https://quenthai.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/dual_colonisation/>
3.有關國際法中erga omnes的解釋，可參閱James Crawford (2012), Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th Edn), pp.578-580
4. 啟琪 (2016), "衝破無理延伸的中國殖民霸權", 眾議 1 12-19, 頁13
【Report on the Hong Kong National Party 's Attendance at a Symposium in Japan：Observations on Chinese Colonialism】
【Only a sovereign people may attain democracy】
The foundation of democracy is the demos, the people, and not just any people, but a sovereign people, that is, a people that holds its own sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty is most commonly found in international law, as the formless borders between nations, beyond which any foreign powers should be powerless. By the same vein, whoever controls a land’s sovereignty, controls its people, its politics, and its fate. Such power overrides any concerns of self-determination or principles of democracy. When a people’s sovereignty is held by a foreign nation, then, by all means and purposes, that land is a colony.
As Prof Shih Shu-mei has claimed, (assuming the concept of “China” has existed since the 17th Century or before,) “China” has long been acting as a coloniser in modern history. The European model of colonisation, being widely held to be the paradigm of colonialism, meant that China also being a coloniser is an oft-ignored fact.1 Ever since the 17th Century, the rulers of what we call now the Chinese land were, in fact, colonisers of their surrounding regions: the regions of Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet. Most ironic of all, as we step into the 20th Century with the trend of anti-colonialism going around the world, these regions only suffered severer and more rampant colonial oppression from the hands of the People’s Republic of China. Policies of racial inequality, cultural invasion, and shameless population cleansing are still, to this day, happening in these regions.
Different from the European brand of colonialism, the Chinese method operates under the banner of the “Chung-wah Ethnic” (中華民族, literally “the Ethnic of Chinese”). Putting forward the invention of this “Chung-wah Ethnic”, the Chinese colonisers forced upon everyone a set of “Ethnical Orthodoxy”: the Han race, Mandarin Chinese, and the Simplified Chinese characters. With this “orthodoxy”, the Chinese colonisers demoted the populations, cultures, and languages of those being colonised as the minor, inferior branches of this “Chung-wah Ethnic”. Thus the colonisers would claim to be blood brothers with those who are being colonised, and at the same time put them in chains as inferior peoples. Since all these peoples are part of the same “Chung-wah Ethnic” as the Chinese colonisers do, the colonisers would say, it is impossible that they are actually colonising, because the same ethnic cannot colonise its own self! There is a commentator in Hong Kong who name this a form of “Double Colonisation”, as not only are you being physically colonised in your land, but your very being, your identity, is also being “Consciously Colonised” into the “Chung-wah Ethnic”.2 This assimilation of the mind explains why it is so uncommon that anybody would view the relationship between China and her subjugated territories under the light of colonialism.
The People’s Republic of China is doubtlessly an authoritarian state. And as long as a land’s sovereignty is being held by a foreign authoritarian state, that land can only remain a colony, and never attain real democracy. The election of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council this year is the best example of this. Half of the seats of Hong Kong’s legislature are selected via democratic elections, and yet, candidates advocating Hong Kong Independence were banned from running in the election this year. On 7th November, the People’s Republic of China even took the step to use its sovereignty over Hong Kong to issue an “interpretation” of Hong Kong’s constitution, forcibly removing several of our elected representatives from the legislature. All of this shows us that, under the sovereign fist of an authoritarian state, any process and result of democratic elections can be overwritten at any time – the demos, the people, has no actual power to enforce its democracy.
It is for this simple reason alone, that the control by the People’s Republic of China of the sovereignty of its surrounding regions, including Southern Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, is sufficiently an act of colonisation that infringes upon such international law obligations as erga omnes, and the universal values of modern civilisation.3 To advocate for anti-colonialism, champion its social movement, and repelling the colonisers is the right of every people currently being colonised; likewise, it is the duty of every civilised nation, espousing the universal values, to defend those international law duties which are erga omnes by supporting such anti-colonialist movements. For the ordinary man and woman on the street, their duty is to shape and guide the public opinion to turn from the false invention of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”, and let more people realise how the People’s Republic of China is, in fact, not a nation state, but a colonial empire.
With the end of the PRC’s colonisation comes the liberation of all peoples and races, when we can all have our own sovereignty back in our hands – this is the foundation upon which a democratic, free, and equal nation can be built.
【Colonisation by the “Chung-wah Ethnic” – the Confusion, the Bondage, and the Solution】
The toxicity of the “Chung-wah Ethnic” as a political tool for colonial slavery is due to its confused definition – the meaning of “Chinese” and “Chinese-ness” are manifold, complex, overlapping, and sometimes self-contradictory. Without a clear definition of what “Chinese” is, it becomes laughably easy for the coloniser to control the narrative, and hide the fact that they are enslaving other peoples and nations. A member of the Hong Kong National Party once wrote, commenting on the intentional confusion of the terms “Chinese-person” (中國人) and “Wah-person” (華人) (both can in English be loosely referred to as “Chinese”):
A “Chinese Person” is not just “Chinese” by his nationality, nor by his race. Under the manipulation of the People’s Republic of China, a “Chinese Person” is a “Chinese Person” because of his blood and kinship: any person, whose kinship can be associated or connected with the geographical “China” in any form at all, could be deemed as a “Chinese Person”, regardless of his nationality, his mother tongue, or his culture. And once a person is deemed to be a “Chinese Person”, then his ultimate origin would be automatically transferred to the geographical “China”. The concepts of “Overseas Chinese” and “Ancestral Homes” are then, precisely, political manoeuvrers to make persons, whose nationality, mother tongue, and culture are all non-Chinese, to think and act as if he is ultimately a “Chinese Person” - he is simply a guest or foreigner who happens to be temporarily staying overseas; ultimately, he is just as much a “Chinese Person” as his grandfather.
Not only does the People’s Republic of China strengthen its colonial hold via the concept of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”, forcibly identifying those being colonised as part of this “Chung-wah Ethnic”, but at the same time it puts those being colonised under an inferior sub-section of this “Chung-wah Ethnic”. The native languages and cultures are said to be local, exotic, and most importantly, not as orthodox as the official Han standard’s language and culture. With this, the PRC rationalises its cleansing the population and language of the subjugated peoples.
It is here that I must mention a seemingly unrelated but, in fact, accomplice to the invention of ““Chung-wah Ethnic”: the idea of the “Chinese Diaspora”. The concept of a “diaspora” is originated with the Jews who, before the founding of Israel, lacked a homeland and a home nation. For centuries they felt as if they were vagabonds in other people’s nations, and thus they called this situation a “diaspora”, or a scattering of seeds. Looking with the 21st Century standard, this concept assumes that every race (here not meaning a national or ethnical people) should have its own country and state, and that this shall be the race’s eternal homeland, a sort of root. The sort of racial politics involved in this “diaspora” concept is, clearly, incompatible with our modern universal values. And yet some scholars, even today, would apply this “diaspora” label to the “Wah-person” and the “Chinese-person”, with the implication that this race should have the land of the PRC as its eternal root and home. With thus, all “Wah-person” who lives outside the geographical boundaries of China are deemed to be “Overseas Chinese” - another inferior branch under the umbrella of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”.
With all these difference branches of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”, the definition of “Chinese-ness” becomes ever the more confused and confusing. And the more confusing the idea of “Chinese-ness” is, the easier it is to incorporate the so-called “Ethnic Minorities” under the umbrella of the “Chung-wah Ethnic”. All of this is done for one purpose: to rationalise and legitimise the People’s Republic of China’s colonisation of these “Ethnic Minorities”.
We of the Hong Kong National Party believe that, in fighting against such systematic and ruthless Chinese colonialism, we must not neglect the anti-colonial work done in our own minds, in purifying our thoughts of these intentionally confusing Chinese-invented colonial ideas. Constructing and reinforcing the set of discourse that uses the lenses of imperialism and colonialism to perceive, understand and explain the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and its territories is the key to breaking the chains of colonial captivity. In our age when it is becoming more and more difficult to stage a revolution by military force, it is more fruitful to awaken the colonised to the fact that they are being colonised, and to let the international community know, with certainty, that a form of Chinese colonialism, more heinous and more devastating than that which happened in the past centuries, is now underway. The very existence of the People’s Republic of China is testament that we do not live in any sort of “Post-Colonial World”. To all of us national peoples of Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, we live in an age far darker and more dreadful than the age of European and American colonialism. We live in the Age of Chinese Colonialism, and our anti-colonialist movements are in motion as we speak.
1. Shih, Shu-mei (2011), “The Concept of the Sinophone”, PMLA 126.3, 709-718
2. Quenthai (2015), “中華民族主義對香港的二重殖民” [Hong Kong’s Double Colonisation under the Zhonghua Race], <https://quenthai.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/dual_colonisation/>
3. For the concept of erga omnes under international law, see James Crawford (2010), Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th Edn), pp. 578-580
https://www.facebook.com/hknationalparty/posts/567874950078130
13
0本貼文共有 0 個回覆
此貼文已鎖，將不接受回覆
| 發表文章 | 發起投票 |