Alice Munro

Canadian short story writer Alice Munro wins the 2009 Man International Booker Prize. The biennial award is given to 'a living author for a body of work that has contributed to an achievement in fiction on the world stage'.

Like about any other short fiction lover, I'd say Munro is a master of the genre. Her craft is superb, and her stories hold surprises that illuminate the truths you leave buried in the depths of your heart. Such is the rare gift from a true writer, who dedicates her life and self to literature. Admittedly, I find some of Munro's works rather moralistic, but that doesn't take away her accomplishment.

The news is particularly exciting for short story writers who wrestle with the difficulty of their art, the utter lack of recognition, and the standard commercial advice: "Write that novel first". Here's a writer who won an important prize for her short stories - finally, an acknowledgment of the highly underrated form. And for that I salute you, Ms Munro!

Here's for You, Donald

It's never fun for Hong Kongers to talk about our Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen. After all, we didn't elect him. It's even more painful when we get asked about our 'political system'--a half-baked mixture of Communist rules and post-colonial illusions; a reality of hopelessness, of our sinking to ridicule. "Hong Kong is so uncool compared to mainland cities like Shanghai and Beijing. Up there people have a lot more guts in criticizing the government," a university professor I know said to me. Paradoxical as it sounds, his observation is most likely true--you go straight to jail if you stage a rally in China, but there're channels for intellectuals to voice their opinions.

And here's Donald who decided to give Hong Kongers some stimulus. At a LegCo meeting on May 14, Civic Party legislator Margaret Ng Oi-yee asked if Tsang supported the vindication of the students involved in the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Tsang emphasized the economic prosperity Hong Kong has achieved with the aid of the Chinese government and that Hong Kong people should have an 'objective' view of the country's development.

Ng continued, "Do you mean as long as the economy is doing well, it's okay not to admit killing people?"

Tsang replied, "What I said just now is Hong Kong people's impression of the event. This is also my view."

Members of the public stood up in uproar, or booed him towards the end of Tsang's speech. Pan democrats shot up with questions and confrontations, then stormed out of the chamber.

When a 20-year-old student union chairperson questioned the truth of June 4 massacre, one may be able to see it as a matter of brainwashing, of how much effort we need to put into educating the younger generation about history. When Chief Executive dodged the question and talked about 'economic prosperity', we might still take it as 'Donald doing his job' and yell about his cowardice. When he had the audacity to say that his view represented Hong Kong people's, our anger takes on momentum and springs up like flowers of hatred--in conversations on the streets, Facebook statuses and notes, online forums and blogs, even in music. In the song 'Donald Tsang, Please Die' by local indie band My Little Airport, vocalist Ah P sings (lyrics originally in Chinese. My translation):

'Donald, if someone chops off your hand today,
and this person gets rich and becomes
the Chief Executive in twenty years.
Will you not hold him responsible for your pain,
just because of his achievements?'

'Tung Chee-wah* might be incompetent
but he didn't have your lack of conscience.
Your biggest accomplishment in your term
is to reinforce the public quest for democracy.'

(*our last Chief Executive, who stepped down after the famous July 1 rally in 2003)

The most astonishing thing is Tsang's ignorance. How dumb does our CE have to be to make such a remark, when Hong Kong people have been psyching up for the 20th anniversary June 4 vigil? When some tabloid paper is running retrospectives on the June 4 history everyday, feeding to the public fury and determination to pass on the inheritance? Did he not learn any lesson from recent episodes like that of Chan Yi Ngok, the student union chairperson who made the wrong speech in public? Is he so out of touch with the Hong Kong society, or does he think he can step on us, rape the public opinions? Did he not remember what Regina Ip once said, "Hong Kongers will go on the streets on July 1. They'll take a walk on a public holiday', and the massive rally that followed?

That's the upside of this scandal. The crux of this episode remains the same. As they'd say in old-school movies and novels, Hong Kongers have one line to say to Donald: "You bring us shame."

Against Mobilization

For those who read Chinese, here's an article by sociologist Lui Tai-lok on the controversy over a university forum on the June 4 massacre. Some of you - my overseas friends, or expats in HK who don't read up on local news - you might find it curious to hear about the debate.

On April 7, 2009, there was an open forum on June 4 held in the University of Hong Kong. It was attended by a number of public figures - politicians, activist and Ching Cheong, a renowned HK journalist who was imprisoned by the Chinese government for no reason from 2005 to 2008. On the panel was also Chan Yi Ngok, then chairperson for the HKU Student Union.

Questions were raised by a few mainland students among the audience, who were skeptical if the massacre 'happened' or not because there was no coverage on the tragedy, then or now. Others accepted its 'existence' in history, but believed the killings had been exaggerated by the media; and that the government took the 'legitimate' actions to maintain the country's stability, since the students were 'in the wrong' for not 'dispersing' when they were ordered to.

The aforementioned chairperson put forward his insights: some of the students leaders of the movement who left the country were 'runaway leaders', and that there's 'some problem' with the way the Communist government 'handled' the 'incident'.

Public uproar followed: protests by politicians, activists, critics, HKU SU, fellow students; questions about his character and 'leftist tendency', condemnation of his immoral stance, his attempts in glorifying the Communist Party. Within days Chan was fired from his post by popular voting.

I have never met Chan nor do I ever want to. Admittedly, his comments left me deeply shocked and angered--not at him, but at the general lack of awareness of this horrific episode in Chinese history among the young generation of students. I cannot--I will not--tolerate the thought that this trauma will fade out from the conscience of Hong Kong people. There're those who say everything will be underwhelmed by the 'wheel of history'. I don't buy this for one second. Confucius said: "Do what you know to be impossible." It doesn't matter who's in power or what benefits you're getting from the regime. If you have a heart and mind, you keep faith and remember. And you work to promote your cause, in any way you can.

Which is why I was rather affected by the article by Lui, in which he pointed out that in criticizing Chan (or anyone else for that matter, I'd think), one must listen to and respect his stance. To be able to withhold judgment is the pre-requisite to true dialogue in a civilized society. Here're a few main points:

1. Leave room for the students to discuss, the resolve the matter through democratic means. If they turn out apathetic and do not live up to others' expectations on their political conscience, that's the reality--and those who're unhappy about it should ask what's the cause of and remedy for this sorry state.

2. Chan has to take criticism, but that doesn't mean anyone can blow the question into one about moral character. Even when dealing with the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' as absolutes, we still have to be civilized and logical.

3. Mobilization is not the same as debate. In recent years, people in HK often fall into the trap of 'taking sides' and rallying supporters in order to suppress their opponents' voices. Part of the reason for this phenomenon is our discontent, fueled by a sense of helplessness, since the handover. Yet it undermines any possible discussion and self-reflection.

4. This kind of mobilization - drastic, ill thought-out ideological moves - does more to repulse young people and distance them from politics. Who wants to swallow such condescension: "I'm telling you the truth. Now what else have you got to question?" Call it shallow, materialistic or anti-intellectual, but the youngsters may just care less about the massacre. Chan's stance may very well not represent the minority.

It's a wake-up call for those Hong Kongers who want to preserve the memory of June 4, about all the efforts one needs to make in the community. And how important it is to pass on the knowledge, to convince with reason.

The Short Story

As I more or less wrote in a previous entry, I'm skeptical of writers who go around announcing "I'm writing a book" as if they're all self-important; or I, for one, wouldn't feel comfortable doing it because I'm a short fiction writer. People tend to equate the idea of 'a book' with a novel, as if collections of short stories, which many writers are constantly working on, do not count. Some well-meaning contacts ask: "Have you ever tried to write a longer piece of work, like a novel?". Others speculate on the validity of a collection of themed stories: "You should be able to talk about the connection to sell the book, no?"

What they fail to see is that short fiction is a legitimate--dare I say glorious--genre of an order just as high as that of novel. It asserts the significance of life in a different light, and it's just as valuable and difficult to write. If I write a book length piece of work, it's because the ideas hit me and it needs to be done, rather than I've abandoned my ideal.

Larry Dark says it all in "The Conventional Wisdom on Short Story Collections Is Wrong", in which he reviews the success of Wells Towers' debut story collection Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned:

"The conventional wisdom among editors and publishers is that short story collections not only don't sell but they won't sell...[But] please stop discouraging writers from doing what they do best. I've seen too many natural short story writers forced into writing novels, when all we should really ask from artists is that they give us their best, no matter the form--even if that form happens to be short fiction."

Claustrophobia

The MetroPark Hotel in Wan Chai, sealed off after a Mexican visitor tested positive for H1N1, the first case of confirmed swine flu in town. 382 guests and hotel staff - including those who were in the hotel for two minutes to drop off their luggage - have been put in quarantine since May 1. Most of them will regain freedom today - the government will extend their visa and offer free accommodation for two nights, so these tourists can explore Hong Kong, and have some whirlwind, last minute redemption of their unfortunate stay in this town.


There're news reports of the breakdown of some hotel guests. Confined in their rooms, which grew dirtier by the day without clean bedsheets or other necessities, the guests began to scream, to cry out of suffocation. On TV we saw clips of the interior of their rooms: personal items--toothbrushes and wrinkled men's shirts--lying around as the evidence of a secluded, abandoned existence. The face of an Australian man zoomed in, his voice broken with longing for home.

It tortured me to watch all this. To think a group of innocent visitors were paying a big price for our city's paranoia, our public still traumatized by the memory of SARS. I'm not one to criticize our government for throwing a lavish show, since nobody can tell with the outbreak of an epidemic. I only wish they would discover whatever thrills remain for them in this town during their two-day journey.

I don't know if I'd have broken down screaming, had I been one of those unlucky guests. The one thing I can say for sure is I'd rather be confined alone than with another person. To be stuck with someone in the same room 24/7 for one week, now that's a scene from a mental asylum. I'd be driven to crawl out of the windows--realistically, I'd request a room for myself, but you know what I mean.