How Do I Perceive the Position I am in?
By Translated by Guardians of Hong Kong 15 May 2021(Since I devoured a book by Haruki MURAKAMI, my thinking has become a style like LAI Ming-zhu [the translator of almost all Murakami’s novels in Taiwan])
1.
When called by the name by Victor SO Wai-tak ... oops it should be "called by the number" (defendants and prisoners are not named. Hi this is D33 here~), I was reading a copy of Ming Pao[newspaper] left on the floor by another defendant. I was momentarily absorbed in an article about the “7.21 Mob in white” court case. It wrote that the courtroom was constantly showing the live broadcast, of that day, from “The Stand News”… (I feel embarrassed just to think about it.)
Although I have been very resistant to all the things imposed on me by “7.21 Mob in white”, I am aware of the degree of my connections with this incident. So I can't help but think - now that the 7.21 case is finally brought to court, I am already (after much experience) a political prisoner under the National Security Law (NSL). It is not some cosmic coincidence or dark humor, but rather, the result of my own choice. I have to say, I have gone this far.
How should I perceive my own position? The meaning of "position" here is not only political, but also similar to "situation" or "circumstance", in which its indirect meaning is stated in some Japanese novels: "think about your position a bit” - I was thinking about this question during these four days of bail trial.
From a journalist to an activist, thus from a witness of one case, to a defendant of another (more reporters will probably join soon, so here’s to that!), the dichotomy between these two identities is probably the "story" of me as a person. (Here, "story" is defined in the epilogue of Murakami's "Underground – The Tokyo Gas Attack and the Japanese Psyche ”.) During the trial, I gained a new understanding of this “dichotomy”.
2.
From the lawyer's meetings and prison visits, I have only a very fragmented knowledge of the outside world: For example, I won't know what the outside world thinks of the bail debate, but I know Apple Daily has published a push titled “Lester SHUM: I would like to have a meal.” Basically, it is just “bullshitting”.
From my understanding, the content of the bail trial cannot be reported, so (the report) about me is basically “testing microphone”, “reading newspaper”, “giving Eddie CHU Hoi-dick a hug” and “hurdling”. The family members who visited me made a special mention of it and said, "You are facing a very serious matter, can you be more serious?”
What? I AM serious!
This opens up another question: What kind of behavior or mentality is “serious” in Hong Kong courts nowadays? It is exactly because I am facing a very serious accusation which, without exaggerating, may affect my whole life. With what understanding am I facing it?
The courtroom itself is just a venue, and what happens here is I am (we are) directly facing political oppression.
This involves my understanding of what "participation in politics" means. Generally speaking, I tend to think that politics is a combination of calculation of benefits, compromises and dealings, party affiliation, party unity and disagreements, demonstration of desire for power and lies, etc. Yet, these are obviously not the whole of politics, but only the more common forms of democratic politics, electoral politics, party and state connections, capitalism, bla bla bla… so on and so forth.
In Hong Kong, I believe we are more familiar with the politics of resistance under totalitarianism. What does politics look like under such formation? It's what you saw in the streets in 2019, what you saw in "Occupying Legislative Council Complex" and "Polytechnic University Siege".
A state, in which all the external things that you had in your life are removed, in which you face enormous oppression with nothing but your original appearance - only in this realization will you know the boundary of "yourself": What is that something you never imagined, yet you are able to do? What is that something you can't overcome, no matter how much you muster up your courage? What is it that something you are not willing to give up, no matter facing what threat? Conversely, what threat can force you turn your back on something you hold dear?
This only happens in the political arena which has an overarching power over human freedom and even lives. Thus, only when one is in political action can one answer all these acute questions about "oneself".
This is why I once felt stifled by my identity as a journalist, because between "nothing but the self" and "oppression" , there is always "profession", which dominates, which must be obeyed, which overrides everything and becomes the highest standard, which is not a "personality" but is so complete that it is almost a "personality". Between one's personality and "professionalism", the former must give way.
It's no exaggeration when people tell me "you're a human being before you're a journalist," I disagree: "but you should still be a journalist when you put on your press card.” Case in point: - I kept on recording when being beaten. I have explained on many occasions that at that moment I was only thinking about the live broadcast, basically I was just a moving tripod that could narrate.
With me as the carrier, "a journalist’s profession" and "oppression" have completed a confrontation. That's it.
Video clip caption: [Yuen Long station, West Rail line] Many men in white repeatedly attacked common civilians with rods and sticks. The mob also clamoured towards people inside the paid area. The reporter witnessed a middle age woman, with her face soaked in blood from head injury, seeking asylum in the ladies’ toilet. A female reporter of The Stand News was attacked during live broadcast. Her two arms and right shoulder were injured and bleeding. Her rear skull was swollen and there was a large area of wound on her back. She had to stop the broadcast as she felt dizzy. Accompanied with her management she went to the hospital shortly after midnight. Her right shoulder was treated with four stitches. She stayed overnight at the hospital for observation.
Even if I was invited to the witness stand for the trial on 7.21, I probably could only say, "Please watch in detail my live broadcast (aka a news product from a journalist's work.)" I couldn't add anything. I won't easily accept any kind of imagination arising from my nickname “The Stand News Sis” but in fact unrelated to me.
And so, having experienced 2019, I am now, by my own choice, in another seat in another courtroom.I realize that, well, this is the moment when I, with “nothing but the self”, am facing enormous oppression. (Though the oppression - materialized in a form of SO Wai Tak, who “shared the same thoughts“(in AU Ka-lun’s words) with the Department of Justice, who kept making mistakes - appeared weak (and many people even had the misconception that there was hope)).
With the above understanding, and knowing the seriousness of the consequences, would it be more "serious" to sit tight from the moment you enter the courtroom and help maintain the usual courtroom demeanor, than to take the last chance before the trial starts, to hug the persons you will be leaving for years?
As for Joshua WONG and Owen CHOW Ka-shing, I could only kiss their fingers through a gap in the glass fence.
3.
My hysterical exurberance as a result of severe lack of sleep (is it really on me though?) on one hand; plus the awareness of my position on the other, left me with no room to respond to the trial in a way other than basic instinct, though I was aware that the scene was a courtroom.
What is meant by "instinct"?
I saw a column in Apple Daily describing me as "after making a statement, pressing the railing with one hand and ‘hurdled’ over with ease"... How did this rumor come out? I was in the back row (after all I was D33), so I straddled, very normally, over the front row of the defendant's seat (with a backrest) to make my statement.
At this point, it becomes clear where the problem lies.
No one will often "normally" straddle over obstacles. However, anyone who has been in the streets in 2019 will have the experience of frequently “hurdling” over railings/curbs in the center of the road. That is an action, completely absorbed and internalized by the body, (and since most likely carrying a camera, hence a one-handed action) of a reporter covering scenes of conflicts of all sizes in 2019, an action next to reflex.
It's not because I didn't realize that it was a court, but because I didn't realize that my "normal" was already so far away from the worldly (?) “normal”.
Wearing clothes that I wasn’t allowed change for five days and four nights (by the way, I wore Uniqlo inside out), standing in the middle of the courthouse, I did not feel embarrassed. Among the legal elites in brand new clothes, I felt just about right that I dressed like this. However for a split second I thought of LAU Tit-man.
When listening to other political trials in the past (including LAU's case, see Note 1), I got the impression that the language used in the courtroom has its own unique structure and norms - similar to the aforementioned "journalist" profession, a language that appears to be all-encompassing, but in fact has limits everywhere. In the legal context, it is a language that can suspend reality and enter into infinite technical discussions, nullifying all meanings.
The above is just my observation with possible misunderstandings. However in countless political cases, we have witnessed defendants after defendants being forced into a surreal space constructed by legal language that has nothing to do with our perceived reality, and subjected to a set of logic that does not apply in reality. Every attempt to bring them back to reality “has nothing to do with the case". Lives in reality are judged and convicted in this virtual (as in LAW Wing Sang ...?) legal world.
This is a city where public language can only consciously or unconsciously maintain illusions, and where "dreaming" is the real perception of reality.
If I go on, it will be about bail, so let me stop there. In this case anyway, the above situation is so serious that even the legal statements of a group of Senior Counsels were described by the prosecution as "political opinions that are not relevant to the case and cause unnecessary emotional reactions".
I felt seriously lost for words in this language system and did not understand why my fate had to be decided in this way. Even with a very dedicated team of lawyers and many comrades supporting me in all matters, I had to make many of the decisions and responses to the trial on my own.
This is how I entered a state of so-called "nothing but the self".
When confronted by oppression, one had to ask inwardly what within "oneself" could counteract its overwhelming and tremendous pressure.
Standing in the middle of the courtroom, looking around, I just felt, this courtroom is so small.
4.
What is there in the "I" that I am looking for? Well, there is something that I am not willing to give up in front of this level of oppression. What is the basis for this reluctance? Is it useful? What's the point? [as] The contents of the bail hearing will not be reported.
“Useful or useless” is a never-ending debate in the movement, and as a journalist, I have been trying to untangle it since 2014, but have not been able to.
I didn't expect that this problem would be solved very easily once it entered the political arena.
In my brain, there are many, many things that no one knows or remembers, things that I cannot share with anyone, the teachings of my predecessors, the light and vulnerability of my comrades, the power of the stories, the impact of the momentary images......
That last glance at me, through the face mask of a person, whose name I didn't have time to ask, before leaving me in the dust and disappearing into the smog that blocked the sky.
People, events, and images have shocked me so much. It was so touching as if the faith of the people would move a mountain.
Are these things which only touched me but do not exist in public memory (or exist in public memory in a way different from how I remember them,) useful or useless?
I found that it depends entirely on me. If I, who have been affected, at some point make a decision to live up to that influence, then the meaning of the thing that affected me are justified.
As I stood in the defendant area in the middle of the courtroom, I felt so clearly that the people, events and moments in my life that had touched and inspired me were living inside me.
This is the only fact that I must recognize. Everything else, whether "relevant" or not, and its result, is not as important.
5.
I don't know yet how far I can go if I face greater pressure (I've never vowed to stand firm until the end, never mind the future :( ), but at this juncture, based on the above thinking, I have made this choice.
Two persons were particularly relevant in terms of the content of my court statement, so I asked them to be my guarantors (well, that's how I understand the role of a guarantor). I won’t mention one for the time being (laughs). As to the other, I'm quite sure I wouldn't be so persistent if I hadn't been nurtured by him and didn’t grow up (not without difficulties) in the space he opened up.
In a court of law where oppression is visualized, it is not "I, as a journalist," but "I," who believe that freedom of speech is essential and persist.
After all, only when I put aside the identity of “journalist”, be in such a position, can this persistence be realized.
Only when I finished the last sentence of the statement did I finally feel that I could reconcile myself with the name "The Stand News Sis".
Note 1: I wrote a Facebook post about Lau Tit-man in September 2018. It covered my understanding of the origin of “legal language”.
PS
In fact, I know [if] you have read the content of my court statement ...... hopefully the full text, combined with this article, you should be able to resolve all the unclear points of this article above, including why I mentioned the "journalist" problem again.
While waiting for outside books to arrive, I found a copy of "Underground" in the dream garden of bookcases here. To put it simple, Murakami, as a "novelist", doing a "journalist" job, taking the stance of a "Japanese", finished a book that was neither "history" nor "research", but "carrier of reality". However the book is not as valuable as Murakami's writing project itself, as a "political action", to fight for the right to interpret (or enrich?) the Sarin incident.
Looking at these keywords, you may also think, well, isn’t it destined that I found this book in these days? (Just like I casually watched the opening of "Ultimate Song Chart Awards Presentation" before arrested under NSL.)
PPS
Anthony Wong Yiu-ming once came to West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD). Disregarding what he came for (laughs), let's take him as an example. He used to talk about David Bowie until Lo Hoi-tung looked at him in the eyes and said, "You always talk about how David Bowie inspired you, but I want to tell you that you are my David Bowie.”
Just as people watching "Star Maker 3" will marvel at Eman Lam's touches and attitudes towards life, they don't need to know that they are actually (partly) Anthony Wong’s aesthetic. It is roughly the same logic that a Hong Kong girl, who knows nothing about David Bowie, seems to see him living inside Anthony Wong all the time.
(And I will always remember the white dress code of the June 9 (2019) parade, and the “Ellen V live” memorial tee I saw in the crowd occupying Gloucester Road outside the Police Headquarters late that night )
PPPS
Personally, I am always wary that focusing on family members in political events is a warning sign that civil society is running out of things to do (from my understanding of civil society in mainland China from 2015 to 2018, see episode 2 of my podcast for details). So wherever possible, I will continue my bullshitting on “Trial & Error [Youtube channel]“ and ...... To someone who have already spoken to the point where they feel embarrassed to continue: I hope you won't interview my family, thank you.
By the way, I “feel very right” to wear unwashed Uniqlo to deliver my court statement. This seems to be the same thing as - I don't tend to define myself by common standards of importance, but keep emphasizing that I am a fan of Nintendo games and Mirror [a pop band].
PPPPS
Seeing Apple Daily’s report that my friend "paid for the radio for Gwyneth Ho, a former journalist, so that she could keep up with latest news”, I want to clarify that I was so anxious to order the radio not to keep up with latest news (I can read the newspaper to do so, and there is no point knowing the news immediately), but to listen to the sound of Jeremy LAU Ying-ting. (Ain’t I good at finding room to praise Jeremy?)
Every time I unconsciously hummed "People at the Edge of Time", the voice in my head, which was so clear and rich with infinite layers, seemed to fade a little bit. I dare not sing it again fearing that it will disappear completely from my mind and I won’t remember it anymore.
I don't want to forget Jeremy's voice! Regardless of how far I have to go and how many cycles of reincarnation, I will come back.
Source：Standnews #Mar23
#Interview #Standnews #Journalist #GwynethHo #Position