Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying warned, in his 2015 Policy Address, about the dangerous idea of "Hong Kong independence" published in Undergrad, the official magazine of the University of Hong Kong's (HKU) Students' Union. The publication, unfortunately, responded by running more articles advocating "HK independence" in its latest edition instead of admitting its past mistakes. In doing so it further convinced the public of its separatist position. So it is crucial to be vigilant about its advocacy of "HK independence".

The latest issue of Undergrad accuses Leung in its editorial of "waging a full-on political oppression and ideological containment campaign" (presumably against the publication). It also defends itself by saying it "only discusses 'HK independence' and does not try to realize 'HKI'" while accusing the "pan-democrats" (in Undergrad's own words) of "denying any connection to 'HK independence' to save their own skin." It then concludes "Hong Kong youth are gaining a native awareness and desire for independence"; "time is on the side of youth" and "it is extremely difficult and even forbidden to determine one's own fate and be a Hong Kong person in China, but that is the destiny of the umbrella generation and the only way out."

In this editorial, Undergrad repeatedly emphasizes "HK independence" is not its goal. It claims it has nothing to do with efforts to realize "HK independence". If this is true, why does it mock the "pan-democrats" for trying "to save their own skin" by swearing off "HK independence" notions? This "noncommittal" premise regarding "HK independence" places the editorial staff of Undergrad in an awkward position when the editorial uses a third-person (young people's) point of view to state the rise of "native awareness" and "desire for independence". Does it mean Undergrad is not run by young people and does not speak on behalf of Hong Kong young people? Is the conclusion of the editorial Undergrad's own, or not?

The fact is Undergrad's editorial board has been pro-independence all along. All the self-contradictions and self-serving arguments of its latest editorial are merely to deceive the public. Along with this is the revelation that Undergrad's editorial staff requires serious training in logical thinking.

Let's not forget the articles Undergrad published last year focused on "HK independence", including how it can be achieved - by armed rebellion, foreign military assistance and/or through political consultation. One of them went so far as to consider the creation of Hong Kong's own armed forces. Ridiculous as these ideas may sound, they are definitely serious about methods for achieving "HK independence". Admittedly, there is a difference between talking about something and actively pursuing it. But these separatist ideas are about specific options rather than theories. They look more like plans and strategies than anything else. How can something like "HK independence" be achieved without this?

In the latest issue of Undergrad there are again several articles discussing matters relating to "HK independence". Two of them focus on "revolution" as a way to achieve independence. In a piece under the title "Nationality, Democracy and the Umbrella Revolution" the author asserts "nation and state (or administration) often overlap each other and are even confused with one another. This is then used as a premise for the notion that "the Communist Party of China is a foreign government" and a rhetorical question, why can't Hong Kong people be treated as a separate nationality?

Throughout the article the author avoids giving people the impression that he (or she) is pro-independence. But the article leads the reader to conclude "HK independence" is inevitable. That is why it claims Hong Kong people generally have yet to realize "HK independence" is their destiny. This means publications like Undergrad are obliged to "enlighten" them. The problem is that the article is full of false arguments, impossible reasoning and unsupported conclusions. It is an insult to academia.

In terms of concept, "nationality" and "state (or government)" are two completely different things. Therefore, there is no way the two can "overlap" or "become confused with" each other, unless that statement is intended to confuse the reader in the first place. My guess is that the author wants the reader to conclude Hong Kong people can, and should, be treated as a nationality because it would "overlap" with the "democratic state (or government)" perfectly. To achieve this Hong Kong people should launch a revolution similar to a war of independence. This would depend on the younger ("umbrella") generation - preferably with foreign military assistance. What better platform is there for spreading the separatist message among Hong Kong young people than Undergrad?

It is unclear why the article renders it so difficult for the reader to guess the nature of its true intent. But another piece in the same issue is very straightforward about what the author wants - "HK independence" through a bloody war. That article is entitled "Protecting local nationality with a revolution". The author wrote it as a de-facto declaration of war on the central government. I wonder what Undergrad has to say about such aggressive views?

The author is a current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 02/12/2015 page10)