The great leader has fallen. Tanks are on the streets of the capital. A cadre of army officers seize the elderly statesman and demand that he publicly resign and hand over power to their chosen successor. A corrupt administration happily turn, as does his public support. His family have fled the country. Senior members of his government are either already under house arrest or are fleeing. He is handed a script, and television cameras begin to roll.
編按： Evan 認為，在羅哲斯被拒入境時，根據《基本法》林鄭一定已被知會；如果羅哲斯入境確實是外交問題，構成「外交事務」的要素必須要釐清，並理應告知羅哲斯、英國政府和香港人。
Evan argues that in denying Rogers entry, Carrie Lam must have been informed in accordance with the Basic Law; and if his entry was indeed a foreign affair issue, what constitutes “foreign affairs” needs to be defined. Rogers, the British government and the Hong Kong people should be told.
Evan notes the muted response in Hong Kong to the 19th National Congress. He argues that so-called “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is contingent on a people who have no expectation of shaping their own future — people who subconsciously believe in authority rather than representation. He dares us to ask those questions our countrymen dare not.
Evan argues that Hong Kong today is no place for the moderate, sharing with us his own experiences and that of a friend who has unfairly been called a 50-center. He says that for there to be a discourse, moderates must again find their voice. However, this is unlikely as the push to the extremes is a reflection not of new, but our national politics — in reality the CCP is the only voice that we are allowed to hear, and it does not do dialogue.
Evan writes that there is an internal contradiction to the logic of barring Benedict Rogers from Hong Kong, and that the decision itself only adds fuel to the fire of rumours that Beijing is not serious about preserving Hong Kong’s core values.
Evan looks at the parallels between the Catalan referendum and the 2014 poll, and the following Occupy protests. Whilst he sees many similarities, he stresses that there is a fundamental difference: the relationship of Hong Kong people with our national government is defined by fear. We dare not have a referendum. And our “pragmatism” is not pragmatic, but really a sign of oppression.
編按：Evan 審視加泰羅尼亞公投、香港 2014 年民意調查，以及之後的佔領行動，雖然從中看到很多相似之處，但 Evan 強調兩地人民有根本區別：香港人與政府的關係是由恐懼所決定的，我們因此不敢公投；我們所謂的「實用主義」並不務實，而是真正被壓迫的跡象。
（編按：Evan 在本文指，香港殖民地時期最後一住港督彭定康最近訪港，突出了我城管治情況有多大變化。他認為彭定康對批評和反對意見的尊重，以及建議多與民接觸，不應被視為一個驚喜。 Evan 最後提到，香港人要問的真正問題是，不斷分裂的社會底下正在影響政治時，林鄭是否被允許作出選擇呢？）
In this essay, Evan argues how the recent visit of Hong Kong’s last governor Chris Patten highlights how much governance has changed in this city. He argues that Patten’s respect for criticism and opposing views, and his advice to engage with people, should not come as a surprise. He says the real question Hong Kong people must ask is whether in defining the divisive politics that afflicts the city is Carrie Lam allowed a choice at all?