The Restaurant refusing to serve Mandarin speakers: Conversation, Pain, and Struggle

Editor’s Note: Glory Cafe, a restaurant regarded as sympathetic and supportive of the Anti-ELAB Movement, announced on Facebook on 28 January 2020 that it would stop catering to Mandarin speakers in reaction to the government’s refusal to restrict the entry of mainland visitors upon the coronavirus outbreak. In mid-February, a group of “Hong Kong drifters” (a term referring to immigrants from China who study or work in Hong Kong who may or may not be permanent residents of Hong Kong) made a visit to the Cafe for a conversation with the restaurant owner during which they ordered food in Mandarin and gifted healthcare products to the restaurant. A series of articles reporting the event by the organiser posted later on Facebook spurred vigorous debates and criticisms. This is an excerpt from an article by the Initium (HK news media), featuring commentary by various parties, including  participants of the visit. 

As a couple of “Hong Kong drifters” (see Editor’s note) walked into Glory Cafe, a public action and a series of articles stoked a debate about languages, power, and identities. What did parties to this debate—“drifters” who undertook the action, people who voiced the opinions publicly, or the restaurants that explicitly announced their refusal of Mandarin speakers—think and feel?

Nannan has been exceptionally careful with her words when posting on Facebook. On 10 March, she saw a post by a female student from mainland China about being rebuffed by a restaurant just because she spoke Mandarin, despite explaining that she had not been to mainland China recently. “A lot of netizens blamed that girl. For a moment, I felt impelled to speak but it seemed futile,” Nannan said. She wanted to contact the student, only to find that the Facebook account was deleted. 

For more than a month, Nannan has also been in the centre of a vortex. Seven years ago, she came to Hong Kong to study, and has since been working in the cultural sector. Being able to Cantonese fluently, albeit with a slight accent, she felt that she was already adapted to life in Hong Kong. 

Into early 2020, after months of turmoil from the Anti-ELAB Movement, COVID-19 broke out in Hong Kong. Discontent with the government’s reluctance in closing the borders, some restaurants started to impose restrictions on their own terms. Some started to refuse customers who have visited mainland China in the previous 14 days. Others specifically refuse to serve “mainlanders” or “Mandarin speakers”. Most of these restaurants are “yellow shops” that support the anti-ELAB movement and the protesters.

On 28 January, Glory Cafe made this announcement on Facebook: “Effective immediately, Glory Cafe will serve Hong Kong people only. Orders will only be taken in Cantonese or English, there will a temporary suspension of service to Mandarin speakers. Update: Taiwanese are welcome.” At the time, the epidemic was rapidly spreading in mainland China. Many Hong Kong citizens demanded border closure (to mainland Chinese visitors). This post by Glory Cafe drew immediate attention. Some left comments such as “real Hong Kongers must persist” or “other yellow shops should follow suit”. However, someone raised this issue: “Supposedly, we are all in this together because we care for Hong Kong and all are considered comrades as long as we are protecting this city of ours, no matter where we come from? How come it has now changed to ‘Mandarin is not welcome for now’?”

Puzzled by Glory Cafe’s service policy, Nannan and some “drifter” friends of hers visited the restaurant in an attempt to speak to the owner, and ended up placing orders in Mandarin. Later, Minnie Li, the convener of the action and a social science lecturer at the Education University of Hong Kong, wrote about their experience on the internet which prompted controversies and discussions. For a couple of nights, Nannan couldn’t bring herself to sleep. Nor did she engage in any discussions. 

“Perhaps I was rather naive, my views about this city were perhaps rather idealized. I never thought that misunderstanding and emotion can come so swiftly. I realize that it’s a difficult time for a dialogue,” said Nannan. A month passed by but the repercussions were still lingering. The “drifters” who undertook the action, people who voiced their opinions publicly, and the restaurants that explicitly announced their refusal of Mandarin speakers - what did they think and feel?

When “comrades” meet “drifters”

At 3 pm on 21 February, a group of six including Nannan, Minnie Li, and Moxi met in front of a branch of Glory Cafe. For more than six months, Nannan has been patronizing “yellow restaurants” almost exclusively. Supportive of the Movement, she thought people should “vote with their money” - pouring their money into restaurant (owners) with whom they share the same values. However, she felt uneasy about Glory Cafe’s refusal to serve Mandarin speakers.

“Just like I participate in demonstrations and marches to understand how protesters’ feel. What I saw on Facebook were feelings and words of hatred, so I wanted to see firsthand (at the restaurant) if there was any room for a dialogue,” Nannan recalled. 

Amid the contradictions between China and Hong Kong, along came the Mandarin versus Cantonese controversy and accusations that immigrants and professionals from mainland China extort local resources. These issues were nothing new and they have surfaced periodically. Though in the Movement, society was united in its opposition to the government  and left behind their disagreements for now, leading to the solidarity enshrined in the slogan “fight on as comrades, each in our own way”. At the beginning, some mainlanders in Hong Kong joined the Movement while making clear their identity as immigrants. The “anti-China” sentiment was intense, but much of it was against the Chinese Communist Party and the government. 

However, came the pandemic and possible carriers of the virus became the new targets. The number of restaurants that refused to serve mainlanders grew as COVID-19 broke out. By 17 March, 127 restaurants were listed as “not serving mainlanders” on Fact Vote, (a website pitching anti-ELAB information). 

Despite identifying themselves as comrades of the Movement, Nannan and her compatriots do not endorse this new trend. Nannan worried that immigrants would become the scapegoat for the regime even if the fear of the pandemic was understandable. Having read Glory Cafe’s first “Hongkongers Only” announcement, Minnie Li and her husband, public health scholar Roger Chung replied with a series of articles, including a commentary in The Lancet. 

“Stemming from life-threatening fear, these responses are understandable and closely related to negligence on the government’s part,” Minnie Li wrote. “But most are inimical to self-protection and public anti-epidemic measures.” Li felt it was not only ill-suited to promoting solidarity in social movements, the moral ground was also flimsy .

On 15 February, Glory Cafe received a phone call from the Equal Opportunities Commission, who alleged that the Cafe’s announcement might involve discrimination against certain ethnic groups. In response, the Cafe posted another notice stating that its staff do not speak Mandarin, and will only accept orders in Cantonese. Supporters of Glory Cafe maintain that private establishments are entitled to refuse service to certain people. 

However, Minnie Li viewed this restaurant policy as “discriminatory beyond any doubt”. She regarded this notice that “staff do not speak Mandarin” as a concession by the owner. So, she decided to invite “drifter” friends who were concerned about the incident to speak with the restaurant owner face-to-face. 

“The aim was to convince the boss that this policy might not be the best and could expose the public to other health risks. To see whether we could come to a mutual understanding in this respect and suggest the most practical anti-epidemic measures, for example, some shops provide hand sanitizer for customers,” wrote Li.

Minnie Li said she sent a message to Glory Cafe’s owner on 20 February indicating her intention to donate anti-epidemic hygiene products but the owner did not respond. On the next day, she decided to go there in the company of Nannan, Moxi and other drifters from places like Chongqing and Yunnan. 

“Discrimination” meets power: complex emotional trauma 

Four days later, Minnie Li posted an article on Matters featuring the details of the visit and her feelings. She described their interaction with the restaurant staff in the two branches of Glory Cafe they visited. Praising her waitress’s proficiency in Mandarin at the first branch, Minnie Li also portrayed the awkward reactions from the staff of the second branch when they insisted on speaking Mandarin. She described their action as “being seen with others despite the stigma, but living with dignity and feelings.” However, the story soon developed  in a direction far beyond their expectation.

Glory Cafe shared Minnie Li’s article on its Facebook page claiming that Li’s group spoke Cantonese during the whole visit and agreed that many new mainland immigrants are also yellow ribbons. However, the post also asked Li’s group to “save their sting operations for blue shops”.  The group’s action became a hotly debated topic online.  Many people supported Glory Cafe’s reception policy and saw the action as “provocative” and “unhelpful” for the social movement . Others pointed to the new immigrants’ reluctance to learn Cantonese.

Local commentaries responded to controversies about group identity, hierarchy of power, oppression of Cantonese by Mandarin (speakers). Some also pointed out that the Mandarin-speaking group’s action failed to achieve effective communication. Tang Ching-kin, a cultural critic, wrote an essay entitled “Ethnic groups should not self-segregate, but they should not enter and exit freely either”. He pointed out that the Cafe excused itself from an accusation by the Equal Opportunities Commission by alleging its staff “cannot speak Mandarin” and did so out of discontent with the regime and fear of the epidemic. That it was not an intention to belittle mainlanders. He felt that interpreting the whole episode as “discrimination” would “completely disregard the complicated emotional structure within social groups”. Tang thought that certain “localist” viewpoints were not able to deal with the position of “mainlanders” who have already assimilated into the Hong Kong culture. He also thought that certain people have also forcibly expanded the definition of “Hong Kong people”. For instance, defining anyone who agrees with democratic ideals as a Hong Konger ignores the situation between ethnic groups in real life.  

Poet Kitty Hung also highlighted the unequal relationship between Minnie Li, a sociologist, and the workers of Glory Cafe, “What can be gathered from the action was that a scholar had imposed her viewpoints on a few restaurant servers by way of gifting and education.”  She acknowledged drifters’ participation in the Movement but pointed out that they also “benefited from CCP’s colonial policy in Hong Kong”.

Localist writer Lewis Loud claimed that Minnie Li and her companions intended to gather evidence that the Cafe discriminated against mainland Chinese people in order to “discredit the entire ‘Revolution of Our Time’”. Loud pointed out that drifters were asking for people’s understanding , “but did not empathize with the fact that Hong Kong people have been robbed of their rights.”

Minnie Li and her friends’ action and writing triggered the complex emotions of many locals. Local artist Sampson Wong posted this on Facebook, “I truly believe that Minnie Li was wrong. She should not have confronted a restaurant and should not have written about it either.” Wong said he understood both the pain of Glory Cafe and the drifters, but dealing with such a complex set of emotions would not be easy. Therefore, it was a matter that must be handled in a delicate manner.

Professor Francis Lee, the Director of School of Journalism and Communication, Chinese University of Hong Kong, has been doing research on the Anti-ELAB movement and noticed the controversy as well. He said it would not be difficult to understand the context if we see the trauma of both parties in isolation. The reactions to the action were imbued with grievances against the policy of China-Hong Kong integration and authoritarian oppression.

Lee also said, “Drifters who have moved here, may try to avoid offending others and may well like Hong Kong. However, facing denigration in daily life is common. The injuries sustained on both sides due to living circumstances are not difficult to understand. The problem is understanding the reasons behind these injuries.”

Clashes and the possibility of reconciliation

Nannan was shocked by the public’s opinion. She still saw a difference between herself and the authority that implements the language policies. Not being fluent in her own indigenous language as a result of China’s Mandarin-first policy, she regarded herself as a victim as well. 

For Minnie Li, “a regime is completely different from the individual. (Under the language policy) everyone may have to endure the same thing, it’s just that they come from different backgrounds," Li said.She believes that when people shift their hatred for the regime to individuals, they stop thinking about the unique circumstances and feelings behind a person's life. It is simply venting hatred. “You may think you are doing something to resist, but in fact you're only hurting individuals, not the authoritarian regime. This will give the regime even more of an excuse to implement other policies and pave the way.”

Source: The Initium, March 2020

https://theinitium.com/article/20200321-hongkong-restaurants-no-mandarin-dialogue-anger/