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?
Evan writes that it was likely the British government knowingly signed the Joint Declaration with no expectation of the treaty being honoured. He argues that whilst Britain may seem powerless, it has a legal and moral obligation to call out a wrong. Doing so would not only likely earn Britain greater respect in Beijing, but also represent the values of the British people.
After pro-independence posters appeared at the Chinese University of Hong Kong last week, Joseph J.Y. Sung, acting in his capacity as Vice-Chancellor, sent an open letter to all students, staff and alumni of the university.
In this extraordinary – and therefore one must presume significant – letter that was sent whilst he was “attending an academic conference overseas,” he writes:
The idea of an independent Hong Kong is not only in breach of the Basic Law of Hong Kong but also contrary to what I personally believe. Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China; this is beyond dispute.
In this essay, the comments of Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen and other high profile commentators are given as examples of a more general attitude within the establishment to be dismissive of criticism and negativity, rather than to address relevant points. Evan suggests a more patient, conciliatory and respectful approach would do more to heal divisions than to constantly play to the fringe.
There is a common complaint among some of my friends on the Mainland that Hong Kong people are arrogant, that they consider themselves different from their comrades on the Mainland, and that they are letting down their nation. It is a complaint that I am always careful to hear out, but also to address.
I begin by asking whether they think Hong Kong people are, in their arrogance and attitude towards their nation, different from people in China? The answer is always yes. At which point I ask them to define a nation. By this point most people see where my questions are leading, and the complaint is usually dropped. Sometimes, to highlight the folly in what is not only flawed understanding of nationhood but a shameful and positively 19th century attitude towards race, I asked them whether they consider me Hong Kong Chinese? It is not polite courtesy that ends the conversation there, but often embarrassment in their position.
（編按：博客 Evan 在本文指出，張德江上周訪港的待遇以及其言行，均會令香港人感到不安，我們的政府可以變得更怪雞嗎？
Evan writes that in the manner Zhang was received, and as much in the visual cues as in what was said, Hong Kong people have reason to feel unease. Has our government ever seemed more alien?）
Zhang Dejiang’s inspection tour of Hong Kong highlighted the depth of disconnect that exists between Hong Kong and the Mainland. In attempting to address core concerns, the tour served only to further highlight a root cause: a fundamental different socio-political culture; and understanding of and relation with authority. It is a difference the SAR government cannot, and our national government will not, acknowledge.
This time everything was in order. Procedure had been followed. A court injunction had been posted, informing those who had illegally occupied Admiralty for 75 days that they were in violation of a court order and that they were required to clear the area. A day earlier the police had made it clear that bailiffs would be arriving tomorrow morning, when the injunction would come in to affect. The barricades were coming down and the roads cleared for traffic.
Details of the operation were made public. At 9am bailiffs would issue their warning; at 10am they would begin to clear the roads; at 10.30am the police would take over the operation; from 11am the area would be on lock down, and no one would be allowed either in or out.