29 September 2009

What the fuck did you expect from rockers? You frowned at us when we said "fuck"!

I came into music just because I wanted the bread. It's true. I looked around and this seemed like the only way I was going to get the kind of bread I wanted.

~ Mick Jagger

I don't need to stress again that I am a libertine, taking one of the most anti-establishment stances possible, maybe second only to the anarchists. While seizing every opportunity to ridicule the establishment here, I am equally sceptical of the local activists and commentators who sided with the pro-democracy camp. Most of them are only good at one vice. They always force responsibility upon others and tell us some fairy tales from the moral high ground. They claim loudly: "you should have done what we expected from you, but you didn't...shame on you..." Others with whatever hidden agenda happily join the crusade to get their share of blood. Maybe I will in the next "Know your Honourable Legislative Councillor" entry talk about the Hong Kong democrats, who screwed us for 20 years by repeatedly telling us the same political myth over and over. Until then...

The quarry this time was Danny Summer, the so called father of rock in Hong Kong.

I am not a Danny Summer fan. I can't even recall a single chorus of any of his tunes. In Hong Kong, any of those father/mother-of-something bullshits are almost always jokes. I am sure I will be the father of Hong Kong libertine movement some 20 years later.

Danny Summer played a DAB National Day celebration concert last Saturday. Some louts stormed his stage and took his microphone away to rant and rave about their hatred for the Beijing government.

The incident would not have caught my attention at all, if not for the rows from the local bloggers after. Those louts are alright, but if Danny was a real rocker, the only sensible thing for him to do would be teaching those lads a lesson of rock n' roll by smashing his guitar against their fucking heads. I would have become a Danny Summer fan if that happened. Pity that he didn't act like a real rocker.

I am a rocker. Not only that I listen to and play rock music for more than 10 years, I smoke, I drink, I regularly get wasted, and I say f-words on a minute basis. I guess I have every right to give them a piece of my mind.

The bloggers claimed that Danny Summer was sold out, that rock n' roll is about not giving in to the authority. Rockers have the responsibility to rebel.

The cooking up of myths took the same old formula. They picked whatever facts that fit their argument well and added a dash of value judgement in to give that "one should have done what WE expected" statement.

Surely, some rock music talked about politics and society. But rock music is about a lot of other things as well. Any three-year-old can easily draw up lists of different 25 best XXX rock songs.

Nobody can deny the well known motto of rock: Sex and drugs and rock and roll. Does that irritate those of you on the fucking moral high ground?

I can easily give you guys a small lecture on the sex and drugs of rock music, without quoting that famous, must-buy rock magazine.
  1. Don't tell me that you believe in John Lennon's bullshit that the song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was really about Julian Lennon's drawing. Yes, Lennon had a lot to say about politics, but also about drugs;
  2. At the very same period the Rolling Stones worked on the anti-war Gimme Shelter, they wrote another classic tune Brown Sugar about sex and drugs;
  3. Black Leather of the great anti-establishment Sex Pistols was all about sadomasochism...
Hell with the lecture! Rockers skip classes.

The Libertines Pub are full of junkies. So, next time when Danny Summer plays, I should go and storm his stage, take away his microphone and shout: "Legalise cannabis! Rock on! Fuck the drug test! Danny, you're sold out for not smoking some pot back there with me..."

Why Danny Summer is responsible for anything at all?

Either those people are a bunch of hypocrites who simply wanted to deceive us into believing that rockers should be pro-democracy like them and should never play for the DAB. Actually, any single human being should side with them, or else you're a devil and should be despised of.

Or they are a bunch of idiots in their adulthood who still believe that artists and musicians are saints. Are they going to believe bullshits like the one told by Theresa Fu that she did scare the shits out of herself by swearing "Pok Kai" in the toilet, too?

Bloggers, do you want to be a hypocrite or an idiot?

Leave us rockers alone! We have no obligation to speak for anybody. We simply play music that we like, sometimes for the bread, most of the time for fun. Keep your fairy tales to yourself. At times we put the word "freedom" in our song simply because it rhymes with "condom", just as "peace" rhymes with "piss".

I still don't understand why Danny Summer is the father of rock in Hong Kong...

24 September 2009

The Libertines Pub proudly presents its first prophecy: "be prepared for the cutting off of the internet connection at home"

Little are we known as part-time prophets. In order to broaden our "business", I give you the first Libertines Pub prophecy, it reads:

"Be prepared for the cutting off of the internet connection at home"

It's a well known fact that our government knows shit about policy development and is always a copycat. They always like following the western world on policy formulation. They are even brave enough to justify their policies by the fact that the policies are copied. We saw how they tried to convince us that drug test in school is good by blundering on the Anglo-Saxon experience.

As you bother to read up to this line of this boring entry, I am going to share with you the secret of our prophetic power: go and read a bit the foreign news.

Recently, the French legislature has passed the proposal on cutting off the internet connections to persistent illegal file-sharers. The UK is now also considering a similar proposal to the French three-strike e-guillotine.

We have all that are needed to fulfil the prophecy. We have a bunch of copycat brilliant songwriters, singers, and self-proclaimed international movies stars to cry about the harm piracy brought to the industry. The Big Brother is well known for his taste for controlling the access to the internet, and will be happy to see people like us in Hong Kong barred from going online (FYI: the Big Brother has not banned the Libertines Pub!). Not so difficult to tell that the same idea will be "thought up" here later.

I am not only reading you this prophecy. I also want to act fast and tell the Hong Kong government that the proposal is a wicked idea to consider. That is the job of a prophet, isn't it? So, AOs on the Lower Albert Road, please pretend you have never heard of the news! And ignore what Jackie Chan says! Given half a chance will he be drunk; when he is not, he is always an idiot.

The argument for the internet death penalty is simple: illegal file-sharing, which mainly refers to the sharing of copyrighted works, is stealing. And the government has every right and responsibility to stop online theft by depriving the thieves of their access to the internet, the major means of their crime.

A punishment that fits the "crime"?

Let's grant that the idea of copyright is ok for now and ask a basic question: even if the sharing of copyrighted materials is a theft, does this e-death penalty fit the crime?

Do you think it's cruel to chop a thief's hands off to prevent him/her from stealing again? Maybe also the legs to prevent a swift getaway? It's not only cruel, but the punishment just doesn't fit the crime! We do suspend driving licences when drivers persistently commit traffic offenses. However, we seldom ban the driver from travelling at all. The difference is the same between death penalty and life imprisonment. The criminals are locked up for a very long time, and will usually be paroled, but not killed.

By cutting off the internet connection to somebody, we effectively put an end to that person's e-life. Even if the sharing of copyrighted materials could be justifiably called a theft, barring a file-sharing thief from going online is not a justifiable punishment. It may work, but it's absolutely not right.

Copyright: an obscure and aged idea

The very idea of copyright is disturbingly obscure. I do not want to bore you with the "philosophy of copyright" here, but there are basically two justifications for the idea.

First, a person is entitled to a copyright because the work that person created is considered an "intellectual property". Anybody found such an idea puzzling? I do. The concept of property implies a right of ownership to the property. What does it mean by owning an idea? Keeping it in your head and away from anybody else, so in the end of the day, nobody knows you own such an idea? Ok, some of you will give me an answer like that: to own an idea means having the exclusive right to copy the idea to others. Nobody other than the owner can reproduce the idea in any form. Ar...that's "copyright", isn't it? Anybody smells circular argument here?

The second justification takes a more viable, consequentialist form. By giving the creator an exclusive right to sell the idea for financial gain, creativity and innovation will be encouraged. The society as a whole will be benefit from the creativity and innovation promoted through the protection of copyright. It is thought that nobody would bother thinking up things if they know that the copyright of their ideas would not be protected.

The very idea that nobody bothers create things if not encouraged financially is not universal for a start. Look at what we do here in the Libertines Pub. Even though my view was published in the Standard this Monday, I can assure you that they didn't pay me a cent.

Secondly, I can agree that remuneration will encourage more creation, but it does not have to be protected in the form of copyright.

Free contents are everywhere nowadays. We have more than a handful of free tabloids to pick up everyday. Restaurants offer pay-as-you-see-fit meals; Radiohead uploaded their album for pay-as-you-see-fit downloading and still managed to sell. Good concerts are still selling everywhere around the world.

Some said veteran artists like Radiohead of course will sell out any major venues and make a good profit by touring, something the newcomers cannot achieve. Without a proper gain from royalty and album sale, and not being able to sell in concerts at the same time, newcomers will only be discouraged from joining the industry. But anybody remember how Arctic Monkeys shot to fame? They simply played lots of gigs and distributed free copies of their tunes at their own cost at those gigs. They grew a large fan base exactly by giving away free stuff!

Many different business models are thinkable, instead of writing a few songs or filming a retarded movie masterpiece and hope that the royalty will make you die fat and old. Be innovative!

Another fundamental question to ask is: Who were making the real handsome fortune and are too lazy and thick to change their business model? The artists or the labels?

I am not against copyright of all kind. I do think that those who build a website to milk a fortune from others' works are distasteful and should be punished. However, the world has come to a point where the benefit of freer sharing of information will soon, if not already, outweigh the creativity encouraged by copyright protection. Content sharing sites like YouTube actually promoted creativity amongst the internet community. A more flexible conception of "copyright" should be considered. After all, the idea of copyright came from the beginning of the 18th century and there is no good reason why we should not review it.

The conclusion of our first prophecy: don't follow the French in cruelly e-murdering our people based on a "right" that is obscure and outdated. Hong Kong government, are you listening?

17 September 2009

A Shorter Know your Honourable Legislative Councillor: Starry Lee

I thought a serious "Know your Honourable Legislative Councillor" entry should be one that is well researched, much like our inaugural entry featuring Civic Party supernova Tanya Chan. But I can't help but write this entry after reading an incredible news clip just now, so I present to you: A Shorter Know your Honourable Legislative Councillor: Starry Lee.

Starry Lee of DAB, another LegCo supernova, recommended after a three-month study that fast food shops should add a warning message on their food trays' paper mats.

Warning about what? For those of you who don't read Chinese, DAB wanted the shops to warn us about not to put any of our food on the paper mats. That includes ketchup, dude! Because they worried that we will eat the printing ink which got stained on the food together, and that is hazardous!

They spent three bloody months visiting different western style fast food shops in Hong Kong and mainland China to come up with such an retarded intelligent and cutting edge discovery.

Now that's a LegCo councillor who considers Hong Kong people stupid cares about the welfare of our citizens!

I hope someday they will hold a press conference to tell us that it's good to pee in the shower, after verifying the claim by Madonna 15 years ago on Letterman's show that it helps to fight athlete's foot. Anybody want to write Starry on that?

I wonder what does the Big Brother think when they know that their money was spent in such a retarded brilliant research. I bet they rather like to see the money spent on snake banquets instead.

14 September 2009

My open letter to my god--Gay edition

Dearest Lord and Savior,

I knew that you will be expecting the 2nd coming soon the 2nd letter coming soon. So here we here. This time I wish to ask you this particular issue which bothers me a lot:

Do u really hate gay people? Do gay people really go to hell?

And if gay people do go to hell because of their.. well... ''gayness'

Do gay animals go to hell too?

I know we Christians like to refer to the Holy (yet man written) Bible when gay bashing and I'll be honest with you, holy or not, the bible did save my life more than a few times, and the message has always be awesome. However, people down here seems to enjoy quoting the bible SELECTIVELY to promote their own agenda.

It's actually rather easy to do, let me show you how.

Let's say I'm a gay bashing redneck, before I execute 50 gay men with my saw-off shotgun, I would most likely be quoting them this passage from Leviticus 18:22: and let them know you really hate them:

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Fair enough the bible did said that, so off with your heads, gay men.

Now let's change the situation a little: My wife is about to divorce me, most likely will remarry a younger, better version of me in the future, I gotta find a way to scare her off so I can buy some time to steal the kids and run off to Panama Prision Break style, umm.. what weapon should I use...I wonder...I know!! this passage! Mark 10:10-12:

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

And what's no.7 in the ten commandments? Off to hell you ungrateful bitch.

Oh this is fun. Let's do one more, shall we?

I am a Red Lobster hater. I can easily scare off those seafood lovers with this passage from Leviticus 11:10-12

''Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you''

OMG! (that's you) A floating blasphemous castle capable of carrying out the devil's work!! We must do something!! Kill it with fire!!!

I guess you can see now, how easily it is to play this game, and how quoting the bible selectively when condemning others really is a hypocritical minefield, which the conservative seem to ignore.

Seriously, if the matter of attraction itself; let it be homosexual or heterosexual: Involve such complex psychological AND biological elements, (can anyone really explain why I have a crush on her? and is it wrong?) don't you think some people are jumping the guns a little in saying gay people are evil?

I don't know how you made us, but you sure didn't just simply put us together like an origami, (also I think someone lost the user manual a long time ago.) But you will be surprised at how many of us down here think that 'gayness' is just a choice, like committing a crime, former Gov. and MILF Sarah Palin thought so. Making it another with us or against us situation we human so enjoy putting ourselves into, will never help, if it does, feel free to let me know how. (u know my mobile no.)

If the male lion, the most macho animal you've created
(hey, they sit/sleep around all day, swagger around the the block a few times, look mean, occasionally get into fights, while their wives get food and take care of the children. nothing is more macho than that! Hakuna Matta!!!!) can somehow still managed to gay it up (Look at thos fur!!! fabulous!!), what chance do we have?

Oh and one last thing, if gay people go to hell, does it mean this guy is going to heaven for what he's doing? If yes, wow, man, just wow.


Eternally yours,



12 September 2009

An Open letter to MY god. Yep, MY god, NOT yours. Part 1.

Dearest Lord and Savior,

Hey, how's it going? How are things? I can't imagine how hard it must be for you to manage the whole universe when I can barely manage my own life! That's why it's always cool to have you around ( althou sometimes I wonder... are you really around? I wouldn't want you to see me..well you know.. eh. nevermind)

So anyway, as you've already knew (what don't you know, eh?) we had a deal, and one end of the deal involve me getting baptized (what? yeah I know, people think I follow Scientology, lol I'm wacky, but not THAT wacky, thank you v much.). So yeah, you got me man, I am finally getting baptized, most likely at your son's b-day party this year.

However, before I fully commit to this Christian life and be saved, I just have a few things that I wanna ask. I've decided to write you an open letter since you stopped speaking to us directly some 3000 years ago and need this guy to represent you on Earth, sorry wrong pic... this guy actually. (but wow, can we get a side by side pic of Palpatine and Benedict together, just for laughs? You do like laughs, right? ouch... why does my kidney suddenly hurts...ow.. ok ok I will stop the emperor pope jokes)

So let us begin.

While we're at it, let's stay on the topic of Benedict. I just wanna know, how do you feel about the Papal conclave? How does it feel to have a bunch of HUMANS to decided who to represent you on Earth? I dunno man. Did you gave the Papal H.R department special Holy Power to appoint?!?!? After all we human have never never never and will NEVER!! used your name to fulfill our own sick mind, right?! I mean, people down here pretty much worship this guy, don't you think he's kinda stealing your thunder? Oh and does he really has a direct line to you? I hope he doesn't call you in the middle of the night very often (or worst, on SUNDAY!!) btw what time zone are you in? I wouldn't want my prayers to disturb you.

Moving onward to the topic of human intervention. I knew that people credited you as the author of the best selling book on Earth (ever!) but we all know you have better literature skills than that! I mean how dare they framed you for writing the Book of Numbers!! Try reading it! It will makes you want to rest already and it's not even Sunday yet!!!

Another thing about the Bible, did you know that we somehow call the Hebrew part ''Old testament''?

Do you know they sort of portrayed you as a jerk in that part? So much so that some Hotel now days only put ''New Testament'' inside their nightstand now? Don't believe me? here and here. See that? Straight to the part about your son, they totally skipped all those great things you did in the Hebrew part. e.g Destroying nations, treating Job like crap just to prove a point, drowning the whole world, turning people into salt pillar. etc etc. jeez. I wonder why, man. I love them Hebrew bible stories.

Oh lord, just look at the time!! It's almost Sunday!!! and according to our dearest bible, you just love to rest on Sundays, eventhou you are omnipresence and it is kinda pointless for us to try defining you anyway. So let us call it a night for now. Come Monday I'll get back to you with more questions, K?


Eternally yours (lol literally!!)


11 September 2009

The liberty that is foreign to us in Hong Kong

When everybody here is talking about the shits our journalists faced earlier in Urumqi, and the foreign news section of the local media only briefly talked about Obama's healthcare speech, I found something extremely interesting to share with you, also about the US President.

The US President Barack Obama delivered a speech to the school kids on 8 September in a Virginia high school. The speech was also broadcast throughout their country. The key message of the speech is basically telling their kids to stay in school and work hard, do their homework and revision, etc. If you care to read the full text, the link is here via BBC.

Most of us in Hong Kong would only find such a speech normal, if not praising Obama for his encouragement to the kids. But in US, the speech stirred a wave of criticisms.

Some of the criticisms of course came from the Republicans. They claimed that Obama is trying "to indoctrinate children to serve his political agenda."

I know some of you are rednecks, like my colleagues who spent an hour talking about the possible methods of slicing open a woman, a gross bitch talk which I had to shove down with my breakfast. So I give you an example on what's the deal here. Imagine one day, DAB's Tam Yiu Chung goes to your kids' school and tells your kids to study hard so that they can serve the country and the Party better when they grew up, because the Party has been giving so much love to and putting so much hope on them. That is a political indoctrination. Get it? (If you don't, you're too thick for the stuff below, you might as well head to the TVB forum for something you will understand.)

The attack by the Republicans was doubtlessly a storm in a teacup. The speech was, in my opinion, an honest message about telling their kids to study hard.

But some opined that the problem of the speech is precisely that it is not political, but parental.

Brad Smith wrote in Redstate:

This is a President who once again shows that he has no idea of the proper role of government. If the President wants to talk about governmental affairs, great. I'd love for him to stop by our school to do so. That would be a great experience for the kids. But I do not want the President trying to raise my children. When people ask, "how can you object to the President urging kids to stay in school," I ask them what they'd think if I stopped by their house one night, uninvited, to tell their kids how to behave.
He also wrote here:

What I dislike is the idea of the President trying to serve as some sort of surrogate parent. I don't try to lecture his kids on how to be a good person or a successful student, and I dislike him trying to lecture mine. That's the real and invidious indoctrination - the idea that the President is our national parent, our "commander-in-chief (beyond the military), that he "runs the country." And now he tells us how to live our personal lives. Ick.
I know most of us here don't understand why such a common speech would get on the nerves of these US people. Read the scenario Smith set out above. What would you think if I stopped by your flat one evening, uninvited, to tell your kids how to behave?

The key of the problem is that Obama is the head of the US government, and having the government to bother with the individuals' personal lives is irritating to those who believe in liberty (like us). In a truly liberal society, there is always a healthy tension between the authority of the government and the freedom of individuals.

Haruki Murakami gave us a very fine and lyrical metaphor of the situation we are facing in his Jerusalem Prize speech:

Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg...Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is confronting a high, solid wall. The wall has a name: it is "the System." The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others -- coldly, efficiently, systematically.
Government by definition is a body that has an authority to control a country/location and enforce its rules. That authority makes it a "high, solid wall". Most of the time, this wall serves to protect the individual "eggs", but the extent of control the wall has over the lives of the eggs calls on a reflection.

That famous John Stuart Mill wrote in his great work On Liberty:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...
Let's forget about the above quotation if you don't care, I know it makes some eyes bleed.

The key point is, if it's not about preventing any harm to others by a person, nobody can exercise any power over that person. There is a certain sphere called private life for each of us, that nobody has the right to bother with. That is basically the principle of liberty.

So when the head of the government, this time, President Obama, who has the right to exercise an authority, says something about the private lives of the citizens, some liberals will certainly be annoyed. Think about it, you'd be pissed-off if I came over your flat uninvited to give your kids a lecture on behaving themselves, even when I have no potential authority in doing anything but the talk. Isn't it reasonably worrying if somebody instead has the authority to cane your kids came over and did that same thing? If your kids don't behave, or even give that person a middle finger high in the air, will that person beat the shit out of your kids?

I trust that the speech by Obama was in no sense intended to mess with the private lives of the US people, it might only be a political insensitivity. But the folk in Hong Kong who claimed that they treasure liberty so much have something to learn from this incident.

Are we sensitive enough in protecting ourselves against the potential threats to our freedom?

Some of us said "yes" to the privacy devastating drug test. We invited the authority to control what we read. We let them censor our movie posters. Nobody cares about what is taught in school that is wrong, we simply trusted the education authority. We did nothing when the gays and lesbians are discriminated. We only care about shits like the Nina Wang court battle.

It's time for us to start caring about our freedom, to be fussy about our private lives. If your kids are not behaving, you hold the responsibility. Do talk to the school and professional social workers about the problem if needed, but never invite the authority to mess with your kids when it's not criminal.

Let's all stand on the side of the eggs.

09 September 2009

The hypocrisy of CCTVB

Let me copy the style of my Dictionary blog for a while and start this entry by a dictionary entry.

hypocrisy noun (pl. -ies) [U, C] (disapproving) behaviour in which sb pretends to have moral standards or opinions that they do not actually have: He condemned the hypocrisy of those politicians who do one thing and say another. * It’s hypocrisy for them to pretend that they were shocked at the news.

I must make it clear that I have perfect and sincere sympathy for the three journalists who got beaten and detained in Urumqi. I think in no circumstance should anybody be beaten; and nobody should be detained without a good and lawful reason.

But when TVB condemned the findings of the Xinjiang officials as "onesided, unobjective and diverted from the facts," and repeatedly reported their accusations as the headlines of their news reports, it sounded hypocritical to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Xinjiang officials told the truth. I have zero hesitation in believing that the three journalists have been beaten and mistreated. It's entirely imaginable. Some even suggest that the journalists should have taken extra care of themselves when working in mainland China.

But when it comes down to "onesided, unobjective, and diverted" presentation of things, TVB News has been a key player of that market. I shared with you earlier how they manipulated the review of the privacy ordinance.

We still remember how they transformed themselves to the state-controlled broadcaster, the CCTVB, don't we? We're still pissed-off by their broadcast of Gillian Chung's interview at prime news hour, their obscure handling of Jackie Chan's bullshits, and their self-censored understatement of the 20th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, aren't we?

Have they been in any sense presenting an objective, unbiased, and undiverted news we expected?

That is hypocrisy.

This is NOT an accusation against any particular journalist of TVB, I am sure Lam Tze-ho and his cameraman Lau Wing-chuan have very little say on the overall editorial decision.

But having a biased broadcaster to condemn others for presenting diverted facts is certainly a bit irritating.

Let's support our journalists in their protest against the violence to the media; but let's not overlook the hypocrisy of TVB News.

And the Big Brother should learn that dogs sometimes bite the hand that feeds.

07 September 2009

Know your Honourable Legislative Councillor: Tanya Chan

I promised I would write something local in this entry, but I was not sure. Because any comment against anybody in the Hong Kong pro-democracy camp will be taken as pro-Beijing, the last thing I want to be related to. But I soon found out that I don't give a fuck really. So here you go.

Upon my worship of my personal god in local media Mr Michael Chugani, I found an interesting clip of ATV World Newsline on YouTube. It's an interview by Chugani after Tanya Chan and Priscilla Leung won the LegCo election last year.

"Tall Buildings and Youth Problems"

Tanya Chan, the Zhou Xun of the Civic Party, stormed the Hong Kong Island constituency in the 2008 LegCo election, taking two seats out of six in total for the Island together with her Civic Party leader Audrey Eu.

So those of you who voted for her saw new hope for the democracy of Hong Kong? Let's check out the interview:

Chugani started by asking Tanya Chan, "What's the thing that you want to achieve most in LegCo? You've got four years, what do you want to do?" (0:38 of the clip)

Expecting a monumental, visionary statement?

Tanya Chan however spent the next minute or so talking about tall buildings. Huh? Did you vote her into the LegCo to talk about tall buildings, those of you middle-class city slickers who live in Hong Kong Island and work in investment bank offices on 50+ floor of those tall buildings?

Ok, she added that she cares about youth problems, too. Where is she when we have this heated debate about the drug test?

Let's check out her website and her blog and see what the hell has she been doing last year. Anything under the "development and planning" section of her blog? One letter. And the "Education & Youth Affairs"? The system says it right, it says, "Not Found - Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here." Looking at her blog, you would like to think that she is a stage artist/columnist who writes about food and advocates certain obscure tree policies rather than a politician. So where the hell are the "tall buildings and youth problems", Tanya? And the "very long to-do list"? She rightly called her website "splash", it's a mere noise without much substance.

Would you hire her? Or even shortlist her for a second round interview?

Most of us have been through job interviews. Some of us even interviewed somebody for jobs too. We must have heard of this famous interview question, which goes like "why do we have to hire you?/why did your past employer hire you?" It meant to be a question for you to talk about your strengths. See how did Tanya answer that in 5:49 of the above clip.

She told us about her lack of experience, and that you, who voted for her, are only being generous for giving her a chance.

Will you hire that kind of candidate in a job interview?

Her lack of experience, or is it the common trait of those pan-democrats?

Another interesting finding from the Chugani interview, check out 2:01 of the following clip:

She was asked how she would solve all the problems the Hong Kong government failed to solve so far. She went murmuring a series of buzzwords for another minute there.

Is it her lack of experience? Well, at the time of the interview, she's not even started her LegCo; maybe we're too harsh to criticise one of her older interviews like that.

Here comes the "pro-Beijing" bit of this entry. The murmuring answer of Tanya Chan showed a common trait of the local pan-democrats. Whenever you ask them how they would solve those problems, if they're elected democratically to the administration, they murmur.

They have been giving us a mythical false hope for years, that democracy is the answer to all the shits we've been through. Democracy the religion!

I personally have no problem with democracy. I want to see it right here right now myself. It'll be a big STFU for some of my annoying fellow citizens who see lack of democracy as an ultimate excuse for our collective failure. Let's all vote a guy into the CE office. If we still see those shits, we only have ourselves to blame.

You go and watch other parts of the interview (links to part 2 and part 3), Tanya Chan kept saying that it's about the problems of our electoral system.

I guess we want to see better hope for Hong Kong than the Zhou Xun of the Civic Party.

My friendly gesture to the Big Brother

So, I hope this entry will be taken as my friendly gesture to our Big Brother. Think again, I don't want to be taken to the labour camp.

I don't know what you think, I found the interview embarrassingly amusing. If not for my worship of Mr Chugani, I would not have remembered there's certain Tanya Chan. Maybe because I don't live on the Hong Kong Island anymore, nor am I working in those tall buildings; and I'm no longer among the youth whom Tanya Chan cares.

Of course, to be fair, Tanya Chan is not the only LegCo member who cash our very fat HK$60K+ pay cheque every month for doing very little, almost nothing. Some don't even bother to show up in meetings. Maybe this entry will be the first among the Pub's series of "Know your Honourable Legislative Councillor". After all, I need to do a lot to show my friendliness to the Big Brother.

01 September 2009

Welcome, new readers! You've missed some good shits!

I learned one thing from writing for Global Voices Online, that foreigners could be entirely ignorant of our most heated discussion in town. They told me that ideas like "compensated dating" are local and should be explained, even though there is a comprehensive Wikipedia entry here.

Anyway, I originally wanted to talk about something highly local in the next entry. But seeing that there're many others who came through the links from GVO and having more of you joined our Page at Facebook, it might be nice to devote an entry on what the hell the Pub is about.

If you look at the labels, we talked about issues related to drug tests, privacy, hypocrisy, compensated dating, prostitution, sexuality, pejorative, etc. You can see these are the more provocative, "darker" side of humanity.

The Libertines Pub is a moral mythbuster. Moralisation is what we worry about. As a moral mythbuster, we bashes moralists' vice. It encourages questioning of the accepted moral standards. It however doesn't offer you an alternative one. It encourages you to think for yourself. The only motto here is "sapere aude".

We think hypocrisy stinks and is itself the true immorality. Moralisation of the society is the petri dish of hypocrisy.

Morality, or moral reasons, are too often used as a weapon. It often serves certain political ends. The "moral", or actually immoral, attacks from the moral high ground effectively marginalise people. In the end, we just make our society worse. It might appear that all evil things are gone, but we have to admit that, we all have our darker side. It's only human. Marginalising the darker side is like sweeping the shits under the carpet. They're still there, and they stink even worse.

As our society gets more conservative, morality will be used as a weapon by our Big Brother. Before 1997, almost all Hong Kong people worried about the degree of control to our freedom the Communist government would bring to the city. However, we're now asking for more. We want our government to control what we read, to censor our movie posters, and to set up a prison like schooling.

We called ourselves Libertines Pub instead of Liberals Pub. Although we generally hold a liberal view, we do not want to feed you just another ideology. We want to liberate your thinking. We encourage you to think otherwise.

Besides busting moral myths, we also talk about shits like manipulation of news, fake POR, oppression of gay and lesbian rights, religious right, the Zheng Sheng saga, teaching of creationism, and the Nina Wang court battle.

So, welcome to the Pub. You might have missed some good shits, but grab a chill beer and get ready for more!