"I'm explaining a few things." – Evan Fowler

湯漢樞機以及天主教會以不容忍的態度與偏見，宣揚他們對同性戀關係和婚姻的理解，方禮倫認為，他們代表本性的腐敗。他敦促香港天主教社群，應更加高尚、更人性化地宣揚愛的訊息，這才是信仰的真義。譯文由 Alan Chiu 提供，英文原文在譯文之下。

By promoting an understanding of homosexual relationships and marriage based on intolerance and bigotry, Evan argues that it is Cardinal John Tong Hon and the Catholic Church who represent a corruption of nature. He urges the Catholic community in Hong Kong to find relevance in their faith through a more noble, and humane, message of love. The Chinese translation is provided by Alan Chiu.

*****************

上個周末，是一年一度的同志遊行，全球也有不同的慶祝活動。而香港的天主教會（再次）提醒我們，他們的信仰是多麼傲慢、無知與不容異己。

首先，湯漢樞機公開呼籲選民，在區選投票時，要留意候選人有關同志議題的立場。區議員是無立法權力，呼籲的真正政治意義，其實是向將會很快參選的立法會議員施壓。其後為了安撫外間情緒，輔理主教楊鳴章又將同性戀與吸毒比較。

他們是真誠地提出意見；天主教社群的大部份人都支持兩位主教的說話。從中，我們可看出現實的教會，扭曲「愛」的訊息。

發表這些意見的時機自然受傳媒注意——教會亦早已預計到。因為這些「恐同」與政治訊息怎樣看也不尋常。對同性戀的立場以及同性婚姻問題所產生的問題，教會經已政治動員教徒，最明顯的莫過於湯漢樞機 9 月 21 日發出的牧函。

湯漢以《人類生態與家庭：「鞏固婚姻﹔不應重新界定婚姻！」》為題，公開警告教徒以及社會大眾，，同性戀婚姻假如立法，即是承認同性關係和賦予同志跟異性戀相似的權利，這不單是不道德更是違背自然定律，而這種關係將會嚴重挑戰社會價值觀。

藉著天主教的「人類生態」概念，湯漢引用教宗方濟各所說：「人類生態也意味着另一深層的現實∶人類生命和道德律之間的關係。這關係銘刻在我們的本性之内，並且對建立更具尊嚴的環境來說是必要的。」以及「人也有一個他必須尊重和不能任意操控的本性」，否定同性戀的地位。

我們要記著，這種「本性」並非從理性或是科學角度出發，亦非從觀察與証據所得，而是盲從聖經經文——這種經文的詮釋亦時常被人用作奴役、種族屠殺和強姦的藉口。

同性關係經已在超過 450 種不同動物品種中記錄到，而根據 2012 年耶魯科學雜誌的一篇文章，現存於世的所有物種，當中有超過 10% 都有出現同性戀，是自然不過的關係。而且，我們也有確鑿的証據証明為何同性戀有演化的可能性，以及為何這種關係對生存更有利。該文章指出，加州大學的生物學研究發現，許多品種中的同性配對，「實際上減少離婚的可能性；允許種族成員有更高靈活性的伴侶關係，亦能減低異性間的壓力，從而加強社會的聯繫，減少競爭。」總之，同性戀關係會加強社會中存在的所有關係。沒有人天生「恐同」，自小，我們的本性是去愛人。

同性戀既非本性的腐敗，也不是不自然的。人類以信仰之名而「恐同」，才是本質上的腐敗。

湯漢的牧函又譴責美國最高法院 Obergefell v Hodges 一案同性婚姻立法的裁決。他說，婚姻關乎一男一女之間的結合，是「原始而客觀的真理」，又問：「法院是根據什麼獲授權去重新定義婚姻？」

這種「真理」從來都未有過，歷史亦告訴我們，婚姻在不同時代、文化也有不同的理解。今時今日，很多人都不再視婚姻為家庭的契約，而這卻曾是很多歐洲基督徒的歷史標誌。

婚姻作為一個概念與一種社會制度，早於基督教誕生之前經已存在。在很多基督教的歷史中，婚姻並非信仰的規管範圍，而是由國家所規定的法律合同。因此，美國法院的判決與「重新定義」婚姻相差甚遠，法官僅僅修改法律定義，以更好地體現社會價值，賦予適當權力給人民。真正的問題應該是，教會有什麼權利去定義婚姻？

信徒可能會聲稱這是來自神聖的權威。先不論別人支配我們選擇與誰一起的權利是否正確，但你相信權威，不等於能強加於不信的人身上。我自身的權威從自己的能力而來，並由批判性思考所塑造成而。「信仰」對非信徒來說半點意義也沒有。

現代知識型的社會著重進步與體諒。假如天主教會在這種社會中有地位的話（我相信是有的），它必須是個支持性的機構，促進愛、寬容和謙卑等的美德。教會說得很正確，這樣溫文的美德，因為社會經常被競爭和個人主義滋生的貪婪與自私所主宰，而於世上黯然失色。

但湯漢的牧函，無論內容和發表時機，突顯天主教會以謙卑包裝偏見和傲慢、以仁義宣揚不容異己、以愛的名義發酵仇恨。

現在是時候，香港市民和天主教社群向湯漢樞機與輔理主教楊鳴章發出明確的訊息，他們對於同性戀的理解是錯誤的。信仰沒有賦予他們權力去定義世俗機構的「婚姻」。請告訴教會，自然有自我的本質，並非每每都是他們樂於見到的——這是只他們為自己的偏見辯解。請擁抱我們本能的感受，不做偏見、不容異見和仇恨的奴隸。我們必須發出明確的訊息，愛是美麗的、是值得慶賀的；愛不是關於我們的性取向，而是伴侶之間的愛，這才是建立家庭的基石。

*****************

Last weekend, as people around the world celebrated Gay Pride, a once a year event, the Hong Kong Catholic Church saw fit to (again) remind us of the arrogance, ignorance and intolerance of their faith.

First we had Cardinal John Tong Hon openly call for voters to take into account a candidates position on gay rights in the upcoming district council elections. Whilst district councillors may not have the power to legislate, this call is politically significant in the message it sends to legislators who will themselves shortly be up for election.

Seeking to ease the controversy, auxiliary Bishop Michael Yeung Ming-cheung then weighed in by comparing homosexuality to drug abuse. It is revealing that both these comments were made in good faith and, in the later case, as a conciliatory gesture. By-and-large the Catholic community have stood by these statements. In the Church’s distorted sense of reality, this is a message of “love”.

Whilst the timing of these statements meant they would – as was surely expected – catch media attention, the homophobic and political message is by no means unusual. The position of the Church on homosexuality, and the view that same-sex marriage was an issue around which the faithful were being politically mobilised, was evident in Cardinal Tong Hon’s pastoral letter of the 21st September.

Entitled Human Ecology and the Family, Cardinal Tong Hon’s letter was an open warning to both the faithful and the community at large that legalising same-sex marriage, in effect recognising and according loving homosexual relationships the same familial right as heterosexual ones, was both immoral and unnatural, and that such relationships posed a serious challenge to the values upon which our society is built.

Referencing the Catholic concept of human ecology, Tong Hon quoted Pope Francis in saying “the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment,” and that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will.”

Let us remember that this is not nature as understood by either reason or science, or on observation and evidence; but on blind faith in scripture that has, at times and among others, been interpreted to condones slavery, genocide and rape.

Homosexual relationships have been documented in over 450 different animal species, and according to a 2012 article in Yale Scientific, is present in more than 10% of all prevailing species. Not only are these relationships natural, there is corroborating evidence to show why they likely evolved and why such relationships are beneficial for survival. As the article lays out, research conducted by biologists at the University of California have found evidence to suggest that same-sex pairing in many species “actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition.” In short, homosexual relations strengthen all relationships that existing within a society. No one is born homophobic. From childhood, what we by nature relate to is love.

Homosexuality is neither a corruption of nature nor is it unnatural. What is a corruption of nature, and a trait found only in our species and only after the advent of religious faith, is homophobia.

Cardinal Tong Hon’s letter also castigates the US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges to legalise same-sex marriage. He speaks of “a primordial and objective truth, namely that marriage involves a union between a man and a woman.” He then asks, “What, then, gives the Court the right to redefine marriage in the first place?”

Not only is there no such “truth”, but history also shows us that marriage has been understood differently through the ages and between cultures. Today, for many, it is no longer the contract between families that it once signified for much of the history of Christian Europe.

As both a concept and as a social institution, marriage predates Christianity. For much of Christian history, marriage was viewed as being outside the remit of faith. It was a legal contract defined by the state. As such, far from “redefining” marriage, the courts are merely refining their a legal definition to better reflect social values and the people from whom their authority is derived. The real question should be on what right does the Church claim to define marriage?

The believer may claim divine authority. But a believed authority can not be imposed on those who do not believe, let alone recognise it’s right to dictate who we choose to live. My own sense of authority is derived from my own faculties, and shaped by critical reasoning. “Faith” means nothing to the faithless.

If there is a role for the Catholic Church in a modern, knowledge driven society that values progress and understanding – and I do believe there is – it must be as a supportive institution that fosters love, tolerance and humility. The Church is right in saying that such virtues – the gentle virtues – are too often overshadowed by a world dominated by competition and a sense of individualism that breeds greed and selfishness.

As Cardinal Tong Hon’s message illustrates, in both content and in its timing, the Catholic Church in practice dresses bigotry and arrogance in humility, preaches intolerance in righteousness, and ferments hatred in the name of love.

It is time Hong Kong people and the Catholic community send a clear message to the likes of Cardinal Tong Hon and Bishop Yeung that they are wrong in their understanding of homosexuality, and that their faith does not give them the right to define the secular institution that is marriage. Tell the Church to acknowledge nature for what it is, and not for what they want it to be – a justification for their own prejudice; to embrace what we feel instinctively, and not be slaves to bigotry, intolerance and hate. We should send a clear message that love is beautiful and should be celebrated, and that it is not our sex but the love between partners that is the bedrock on which a family is built.

For the sake of their Church, and in the best spirit of their more progressive predecessors who helped shape our society, they would do better to be a reflection of the modern, inclusive and progressive society that Hong Kong is at its best.

在這文章裡，方禮倫想我們反思將西人標籤，會對香港成為真正的國際化社會，會帶來甚麼影響。

「香港身份計劃 (HKIDP) 」由方禮倫創辦，是私人資助項目，旨在記錄、歸檔和探討各種關於香港身份的活動。譯文由 Sally 提供，英文原文在譯文之下。

In this extract from a longer essay, Evan asks us to consider the way our own “Western” stereotype shapes Hong Kong’s international community. 

Evan Fowler is the founder of the Hong Kong Identity Project (HKIDP), a privately funded initiative to document, archive and explore the Hong Kong identity. The Chinese translation is provided by Sally.

*****************

「你喜歡香港嗎？」

最近，我去了一個小型的社交聚會，在場的都是些年輕的專業人士，他們互相認識,具備相若的優越背景，譬如是從小就在外國人圈子中長大，如今仍自豪在香港紮根的本地人。有人向一個剛從倫敦來港，看起來接近 30 歲的人問了以上那條問題。我本來並不太著意他們的對話。想不到，他卻沉入了思索，沒有立刻作答，這反而驅使了我的好奇心。

「我挺喜歡這裡，」他最後答道。這只是小小的「甜頭」，此後的才是重要的評價。

「香港是一個不錯的城市。我喜歡她。」然後，他再頓了一頓，加了句，「但它絕不能媲美倫敦。」

聽到這句話的人反應不一。有人嘲笑他的無禮。也有人四處張望，大概在想這場對話怎麽這麽快就已經完結。無可否認，有些人被這年輕人的誠實冒犯了。另一些曾參與討論的人，現在卻目光遊移，明顯不想再繼續這話題。

我一直認爲，一旦面對相反的立場時，就本能地退縮到自己的「舒適區」，是教育的失敗。現在連這幫自認已得到最好教育的人群也這樣，實在令我失望。教育不就是教我們以開放及勇敢的態度懷疑自己的立場，並瞭解及迎接反對聲音的挑戰嗎！不是說真理越辯越明嗎？

「你最不喜歡香港的甚麼地方呢？」我再問道。

他的回應令我吃驚：「我實在無法忍受這裡的喝酒文化。」

這時，你幾乎可以聽到有些人深深地吸了一大口氣的聲音。有把聲音說出了大家的疑問：「你從倫敦來，而你覺得這裡的喝酒文化令你很過份？」

「每個人都覺得我一定會喝愛喝。」他答道。

然後，他說無論在工作或社會圈子裡，其他人都理所當然地覺得他一定很會喝酒、交際，並沉迷於某些「娱樂癖好」，只因為他是一個銀行家——他所描述的不過是其他人對其職業的偏見。更貼切的說是，我城這種「期望」源於強大的社會、種族和職業偏見，程度據他所說遠超於倫敦，這也依他所言是「對鬼佬的期望」。

在香港長大的我對這種偏見實在太熟悉了。被標籤為鬼仔鬼妺的我跟妹妹，無論在本地人或外國人圈子，總被認定我們作爲西方人必定符合某些典型，而這些典型純粹是種偏見，跟我本性戓行為全無關係。這其實種族歧視，原因是「你這個鬼佬不是中國人」。

這種歧視即使在我的家庭裡亦存在。幾年前在一個家族聚餐中，我表姐的丈夫嘗試跟我妹妺打開話閘子：「你總共有幾個男朋友？」我的妹妹雖對他的弦外之音有點惱火，但仍禮貌地答他只有一位,那就是正坐在一旁的未婚夫。「來吧，你每個週末肯定有很多男朋友！」他接着說。然後，他轉過來問我晚上是否要去蘭桂坊。我吿訴他我並不喜歡去那裡。他頓了頓，然後用一種可惡的聲音說，「别耍了，我知道你的把戲。」看來，他是非要我承認自己符合他心裡的典型，即家中另外那些鬼佬的形象。

我不喜歡啤酒或咖啡，也從無意欲或曾試過非法毒品。我從不宿醉或夜蒲。我有忠誠穩定的伴侶，不喜歡跟那些經常尋花惹草的人一處。我不喜歡看足球，不特意買名牌，看待用名牌的人跟其他人也沒有分別。雖然我不喜對其他人品頭論足，但無奈身在香港卻常被用有色眼鏡看待。

我曾見過家人跟朋友因為這些偏見而勉強自己去迎合這種偏見。居身於一個相對小但其實多元的國際化社會圈子裡，他們不被本土社群容納，社會對他們持有偏見並以爲他們的特性一致。符合這些特性的人其實只屬少數，但很多人卻只有接受或不被他人認同兩個選擇。

有些人說，我的批評不太公道。他們會說，因爲這些西方人士的典型其實很多都挺正面，而我們不是也因此拿了不少好處嘛。但是，這種觀點完全錯了。如果我得到較佳的待遇，那應該是因為我的為人，而不是我所被認定的那種人，建立在一個錯誤的觀念上的還總是個謬論。

如果我的吸引力不是在於我是誰，而是我應該符合的典型，恐怕那些被「我」吸引的人很快就會失望不已。這種錯誤的認知到最後對任何一方都不會帶來好處。不僅如此，這種典型的延續將使人不敢誠實面對自己，更嚴重的可能故意隱瞞本性來籍此達到短期好處。

雖然我也有這種「符合典型」的壓力，但我很自豪地保留了自我和個性。我確實感受到壓力，但程度不及許多同齡人。這些壓力雖非香港獨有，但基於我們的殖民歷史和回歸後中國大力宣揚民族思想的背景下，感受特別深刻。消除這種歧見對我們建立一個真正多元和國際化的城市是有莫大裨益的。

所以，我對這年輕的朋友說的並不感到驚訝。讓我吃驚的是他有勇氣將之道出來。或者他作爲一個歐亞裔人士跟我一樣，覺得把人標籤化以及逼人認同會帶來更深層次的傷害：即除了在不知不覺中被剝奪身份外，更把我們血緣中的中國人元素也一併剔除，縱使這也是我們家族文化之一。

「倫敦是我的家，因為我作為一個倫敦人，在那裏被理解被接受。」他說。

作為一個香港的歐亞裔人士，我期盼有一天我也能這樣談論我的家。

*****************

At a small social gathering of young professionals, a man in his late twenties who had recently relocated from London was asked whether he liked Hong Kong. The people gathered all knew each other and came from similar, and privileged, backgrounds; local people who were raised among an expatriate crowd to be at once international and yet also proudly rooted in Hong Kong. At the time the question was asked I was, let’s just say, not fully engaged by the level of conversation. However, having half heard the question, I found myself drawn with increasing interest by the unusually long pause the question elicited.

“I like it here”, he eventually answered. Then came a sweetener, before an unusual and important qualification.

“Hong Kong is a great city. I do like it,” then, and again after a noticeable pause, “but it isn’t really comparable with London.”

The reaction from those people present varied. One man just scoffed at his impertinence. Others looked away, considering any real conversation over. That some people had taken this young man’s honesty as offensive was unmistakable. Others, who had been among the most eager to engage now let their eyes wander, as if recognising a lost cause.

I have always considered it a great shame that so many people, when confronted with an opposing or contrary position, will instinctively withdraw into their comfort zone. If education is to teach us anything, and the assembled crowd could certainly boast of having received the finest on offer, it is to question our own positions, and to understand a test not as a challenge to oppose but to welcome. It is on scrutiny that the strength of a position ought to be based.

“What is it about Hong Kong that you least like?”, I asked.

His reply surprised me. “I really can’t stand the drinking culture.”

You could almost hear jaws drop. Someone asked what was undoubtedly on everyone’s mind: “You’re from London, and you think the drinking culture here is bad?”

“It’s the expectation”, he replied.

He went on to described a level of expectation he felt both at work and within social circles in Hong Kong to drink, socialise and to indulge in other “recreational habits”. Whilst he was a banker, what he described did not just play to the stereotype of his chosen profession. Far more pertinent to understanding our city was that the expectation derived from the strong social, racial and professional stereotypes that he claimed exists here to far a greater degree than in London. It was, he described, the “expectations of being a gweilo”.

Growing up in this city I know only too well this expectation. Labelled a Western “gwei jai” by both the local Chinese and international community, the presumption has always been that I and my siblings must fit this city’s own stereotype of what it means to be a “Westerner”. It is an identification that has nothing to do with my nature or actions, but how others perceived what I must be. It is a peculiar type of racism driven not by what society perceives you as being, but by what you are not. The gweilo is not Chinese.

This prejudice exists even within my own family. A few years ago at a family dinner I was sat beside my cousin and her husband when he attempted to strike up a conversation with my sister. “How many boyfriends do you have?” he asked.  A little upset at the implication, my sister replied she had only one, her fiancé who was also present at the table. “Come on, you must have lots of boyfriends every weekend,” he pestered. He then turned to me to ask if I would be going to Lan Kwai Fong that evening. When I told him that I do not enjoy going to Lan Kwai Fong, and that it was not really my scene, I was greeted with a pause and that knowing smirk that seemed to say “I know your game.” That I do not play such games nor wish to was beyond his expectation of the “gweilo” side of his own family.

I do not like beer nor coffee, and have never felt the urge to try let alone use illegal drugs. I have never enjoyed binge drinking nor late nights out. I am faithful to my partner and find it extremely awkward being around flirtatious people. I do not enjoy watching football, nor do I consciously buy brand-name goods nor have any particular respect for people who do. And whilst I never judge those who find enjoyment in such pursuits, living in Hong Kong I find myself constantly presumed and judged as though I do.

I have witnessed friends and family feel obliged to act against their nature to fit this stereotype. Unaccepted by Hong Kong’s local Chinese community, they feel forced to frame a social identity within a relatively small “international” community that is, though far more varied diverse than often understood, perceived by both society and those of influence in our city as being homogenous. Dominated by the voices of a minority who do fit the stereotype, the choice can often seem to be between accepting, at least to a degree, the stereotype and social exclusion from not being placed.

There have been and will continue to be those who will say that I am being unfairly critical. They will point to the many “positive” perception that this Western stereotype carries, and that those so identified have more to gain from the association. But such arguments totally miss the point. If I am to receive preferential treatment it should be because of who I am as a person, not because of what I am perceived to be. The fallacy of such “advantages” is that they are built on a misconception.

If my attraction is based not on who I am but for the stereotype I am perceived to fit, the attraction will not survive reality. It will not engage me for who I am, and will not offer any meaningful reward for either party. Not only this, but the continuation of such stereotyping will encourage people to be dishonest about themselves, to play to this stereotype when they perceive a short term advantage.

Given this pressure to conform, I am very glad to be both autistic and an introvert. I do see the expectation, but I do not feel it in the same way and to the same degree as many of my peers. It is not that these pressures are unique to Hong Kong, but they are acute given both our colonial history and our more recent return to a nation eager to stoke the fires of racial stereotyping. If we are to build a truly diverse and international city, addressing this level of stereotyping would only be beneficial.

So what my young friend said did not come as a surprise. What surprised me was that he would have the courage to say it. Perhaps by being Eurasian he shared my sense that this Western stereotype and the pressure to conform represented a deeper hurt: that we were unconsciously not only being denied the right to define ourselves and be respected for who we are, but implicit was also a rejection of our Chinese identity and the deep affiliation we have for what is also our familial culture.

“London is home because I am, and am understood, as a Londoner,” he said. “I can be myself, and people will accept me for who I am.”

As a Hong Kong Eurasian, I look forward to the day when I too can make such a statement about my home.

方禮倫寫道，香港的郵筒不僅標誌著我們過去的殖民歷史，更是我們香港身份的一部分。任何「去殖化」的行為不應被強加於香港人身上，而須由他們自己來決定和執行。譯文由 Sally 提供，英文原文在譯文之下。

Evan writes that Hong Kong’s postboxes are more than markers of our colonial past, but of our Hong Kong identity; and that any process of decolonisation can not be imposed, and must be defined and enacted by the people themselves. The Chinese translation is provided by Sally.

*****************

本週由兩個故事開始。 2015 年 10 月 5 日（週一），國際新聞網站上傳送著古城巴爾米拉 (Palmyra) ，即現今的敘利亞的寺廟遺址被破壞的畫面。進行這些罪行的伊斯蘭國 (ISIS) 信徒，盲目地只容他們所選擇的意識形態存在，而無視其他人類的共同的歷史。

我第一次接觸到這些圖片時，是從一個朋友的智能電話裏看到。那朋友問：「為什麼我身體的一部分感覺如此強烈，有想哭的衝動？」

我答：「我也是。」

我們兩人都不曾造訪敘利亞，或對當地文化有任何關係。我們也知道被破壞的只是一片廢墟——那是來自一群不復存在的民族和文明，為他們經已放棄的信仰而遺留下的建築結構而已。儘管如此，這種破壞仍是很切身的且不容忽視。

就在同一天，地球的這邊廂，本地新聞報導了香港郵政決定將全港剩餘的 59 個殖民時代舊郵筒的徽號遮蓋。被指有問題的徽號是英國皇室的冠冕，它結合了英國和中國兩地的特點，而且是香港獨有。

他們說，移除徽號是爲了避免混淆，而該行動是香港郵政一個更全面的「去殖化」計劃之一。值得一提的是，香港郵政早已更名，那些具歷史意義的郵筒之前已被決定將以原有形式保存。這以前從沒有被視為一個問題。

作為一篇新聞故事，這件事第一眼看來似乎並重要。沒有發生爆炸，也沒有世界遺產遺址被破壞。然而，這個消息卻引來了本地輿論的強大迴響。

在我的家族和社交圈子裏，我沒聽到有哪一個人支持郵局的決定。雖然沒人爲此掉淚，但聽到這消息的人很多都有種茫然若失的感覺。保留這些歷史徽號沒有也不會影響服務，也不可能有人會因此無法辨別郵箱。做出這決定的動機顯然不是爲了避免混淆。

幾年前參觀鯉魚門時，有一位老居民向我展示了這樣的一個郵筒。記得她把自己的手放在郵筒上面，彷彿在撫摸著一位老朋友。她說： 「它在這裡的日子比我還長，我們一起看到香港的變化，並一起垂老。」讀到本週這段新聞時，我仿佛又聽到了老太太的臨別時的那句話：「在我離開後，這個郵箱還會長存在這兒，標記著我和香港的故事。」

把那些爲數不多的郵筒上的標誌更換掉，程度當然比不上巴爾米拉的破壞。香港郵政不是伊斯蘭國，那些做決定的人也不是原教旨主義者。但這兩個動作同樣是盲目的，都是因意識形態的驅動，而冷待我們的歷史和身份。伊斯蘭國的短視，使他們的視線無法超越自己認同的伊斯蘭歷史框架；因爲被操縱的民族故事，使香港這些人不願也不敢面對歷史的事實。

貝爾神廟 (Temple of Bel) 的破壞對我們的實際影響也許不是建築實體上，而是它標誌了我們共同認識的歷史被毀掉。這或許不是我們自身經歷過的故事，但卻代表了我們身處歷史洪流的一部分。女王塞諾維婭 (Queen Zenobia) 可能早就死了，古代的絲綢之路城市可能早已失去光彩，但它們的意義卻仍活在我們的記憶中。嘗試消除這種記憶，蓄意破壞舊有的自由意志，強加新的意識形態，才是根本錯誤的地方。

巴爾米拉的寺廟，跟殖民地時代的郵箱一樣，在我們眼中是美麗的，因為他們代表的是真實。所以破壞他們這種行爲極端醜惡，是赤裸裸的、本能的、深刻的、殘酷的根本錯誤。

伊斯蘭國的真正的恐怖不在於他們的行動，而在他們否認歷史的動機。可悲的是，這些也是他們自己的權利。歷史的留痕，對他們來説不是種喜悅而是一種威脅，這種拒絕歷史、拒絕真相的態度是如斯可怕。

巴爾米拉的破壞和香港郵政去殖民地標誌兩件事在規模上或者不能比擬，但他們所代表的罪行是如出一轍。兩者都是不以事實為據，而被當權者的意識形態驅使，強行作出的罪行。這些行爲既非愛國也非虔誠，而是盲目和狹窄的。

大家都知道，那些舊郵筒的徽號不代表英國郵局，也不代表英國皇室，即使它們曾經確實如此。他們就像港式奶茶一樣，是一種殖民遺產，代表當時的一種狀況，和香港本地的身份特色。那在鯉魚門的老太太說得對：那將被遮蓋的，被指責為代表殖民地的徽號，其實標誌了我們的生活和香港的故事。

辛辣的指責令這種強行的「去殖化」，特別令人難以下嚥。難道我們真的可以說外國勢力不再左右任命、又或是控制我城的管治？外國人不再霸佔有影響力與責任的位置？不管他們的好意，在文化、道德以至語言學上，你敢說他們沒有影響決定嗎？殖民主義是建基於一個地方的人無法有效地管理居住地的假設之上，並在某程度保証貿易和投資的條件；有一個「正確」的方法向大眾交代、一套「正確」的理解方法。對於許多人來說，這些思維仍然在我城扮演重要角色。

最終，其實只有經歷過殖民時期的人才可定義什麼是殖民主義。只有這些人能決定（不論過去或是現在）仍然是種負累的事物，以及應如何解決這問題。在香港的任何「去殖化」行為，只能由香港人自己來定義和實行。

*****************

This week began with two stories. On Monday, 5th October 2015 international news reverberated to the story of the destruction of temple ruins at the site of the ancient city of Palmyra, in present day Syria. This crime against our common history was carried out in the name of Islamic State, and justified only in the eyes of those who are blind to anything existing outside their chosen ideology.

I first became aware of the news when I was shown images on a friend’s phone. “Why does a part of me feel such a strong urge to cry?”, he said. “I feel it too,” I replied.

Neither of us had visited Syria or relate personally either to the place nor the culture. We were also aware that was destroyed were ruins – abandoned structures devoted to abandoned beliefs of a people and civilisation that no longer exists. And yet, we felt that their destruction represented something both personal and of great importance.

On the same day local news was dominated by the story that Hong Kong Post would be covering up the colonial era insignias on the remaining 59 historic post-boxes in the city. The offending cyphers feature the British royal crowns set to a design incorporating a mix of both British and local Chinese symbolism, and are unique to Hong Kong.

We were told they had to go to “avoid confusion”, and that the action was part of a wider plan to gradually “de-colonise” the postal service. It is worth noting that the Hong Kong postal service has already been substantially rebranded, and that the preservation of a few historic working postboxes in their original form was not before seen as an issue.

As a news story this may at first consideration seem of little importance. There were no explosions, and no world heritage sites had been destroyed. And yet the news generated a strong and vocal reaction.

Among my familial and social circles I have not heard one person support the Post Office’s decision. And whilst no tears were shed, their is an unmistakable sense of loss. The retention of these historic cyphers has not and will not affect service, nor is it likely that anyone will fail to correctly identify a working postbox. There is no confusion on what motivated this decision.

A few years ago whilst visiting Lei Yu Mun I was shown one of the offending postboxes by an elderly local resident. I remember her running her hand over it, as if caressing an old friend. “It’s been here longer than me,” she said. “We’ve seen Hong Kong change and have grown old together.” Reading the news this week I again heard the old lady’s parting words:

“This postbox will be here, as it is, long after I’ve gone; a marker of my life’s story. And a marker of the Hong Kong story.”

Replacing an emblem on a handful of historic postboxes is as an action not comparable with the destruction at Palmyra. Hong Kong Post is not ISIS, and those who initiated the decision are not fundamentalists. But behind both actions is a blind, ideologically driven callousness to the truth of who we are. The myopia of Islamic State to see beyond the framework of their own version of Islamic history is mirrored by a centrally imposed national narrative blind to the realities of a history they do not wish to acknowledge.

The destruction of the Temple of Bel affects us less for what it represented as architecture, but for its significance as a marker of our shared understanding of history. It is a story I may not have personally shared, but it bore witness to a history of which I am a part. Queen Zenobia may be long dead and the ancient cities of the Silk Road may have long ago lost their lustre, but their significance lives on in our conscious memory. It is the attempt to eradicate this memory, to impose a new ideologically driven reality by the deliberate destruction or discretion of the old, that makes these acts so fundamentally wrong.

The temples of Palmyra, like the colonial era postbox, were beautiful in our eyes because they were true. Thus their discretion is an act of extreme ugliness – and act that feels, instinctively and deeply, not only brutal but fundamentally wrong.

Thus the real horror of ISIS lies not with their actions, however deplorable these may be in their own right, but in their motivation. It is the denial of history, and the desire not to know that is feels so instinctively wrong to us; when evidence does not enlighten but is instead understood as a threat.

The destruction in Palmyra and the removal of colonial era insignia on Hong Kong postboxes may not be comparable in scale, but the offence they represent is identical nature. Both are physical imposition of a predetermined and ideologically driven narrative, driven not by the realities of what a people remember, but by what an ideology demands. These actions are neither patriotic nor pious. They are blind and intolerant.

It is public knowledge that the offending postbox cyphers are not symbols of either a British post office nor specifically of the British crown, even if at one time they may have been. Like milk tea, they are a colonial legacy, shaped by a local context, that have become central to the Hong Kong identity. The elderly woman in Lei Yu Mun was right: what is being covered, and what has given offence as colonial, is in fact a marker of our own lives and of Hong Kong’s story.

There is an added poignancy to this argument for forced decolonisation that makes it especially hard to swallow. Can it truly be said that a foreign power no longer appoints our governors, nor controls the administration of our city? Are positions of influence and responsibility no longer occupied by a class of foreign people who are, regardless of their good intentions, culturally, morally and linguistically apart from those on whom their decisions have sway? Colonialism was founded on a presumption that a local people are unable to effectively administer themselves to a degree that would guarantee the conditions requisite for trade and investment; that there was a “right” approach that need to be exported, and a “right” way of understanding. For many, these dynamics are still very much at play.

It is ultimately only the colonised who can define what is colonial. Only the people themselves can decide what was and still is an imposition, and how this should be addressed. Any process of decolonisation in Hong Kong can only be defined and enacted by the people themselves.

（中文譯文在下，由 Sally Kwok 提供。Originally published in Asia Sentinel, 19 October 2014）

The message came through early last Monday morning. A source close to the Occupy Central leadership had written that the pan-democrats, the student leaders and Occupy Central had jointly agreed to issue a statement calling off the protests should the government agree to negotiations. It was a decision that demonstrated immense goodwill and trust in the government.

After all the government had only recently called off the negotiations it had offered on October 3rd when the occupation was less than a week old. The reason cited, that comments made by student leaders for more protestors to join, seemed flimsy and their reaction disproportionate. Similar comments were after all being made on a daily basis, as one would expect from a public protest.

Read More