Religion and Political Protest

I have been following the ways in which religious symbolism supports and influences Hong Kong's political protests for over a year now. The recent occupations have provided additional examples.

1) "Charm" 符

The picture on the left shows a piece of paper, in size and shape like the traditional "charms" used by Taoists. The writing is also like a charm, but it says "I want real universal suffrage" in Chinese plus a Twitter name for the movement in English. The umbrella is represented on top. Below are other "religious" objects captured one night in Mong Kong. Any comments and additional interpretations are welcome and appreciated.

2) The back side of the Protestant Christian chapel

4) Is there more to this cartoon than what I get?

3) A service in the Christian chapel.

5)Banners from the official Taoist Association are still flying over the Mong Kok protesters.

6) This shows the banners in context.

7) The area of Nathan Rd near the chapel and Guan Gong.

8) This is the Guan Gong altar.
Guang Gong is worshiped by both police and
triads, and businessmen too. More on this
in a future post.

9) Not exactly in the shape of a charm; what is it?

10) Two captions on either side of a bus stop are in the form of a 對聯 and say
"Adversity tests the strength of  character" and "Umbrellas show the people's hearts."

11) At the foot of the altar; seems to by
a typical family earth shrine.
Anything I'm missing?

12) The altar top and offerings.

13) Banner on the left side (stage right)

14) Another view of the altar area, with fengshui bushes on each side.
Note earth shrine on left, and pack of incense sticks available for anyone
to use at no cost (like in many a village temple) on the side of the altar table.

15) Banner on the right side of altar (stage left).

16) This is an enlarged "fortune" from a temple from the corner of the banner
(above) but I don't fully understand its content or the comments on the sides.

The view of Hong Kong from the USA

I often have little patience with the patriotic Chinese students who claim the US media is biased against China, or does not really understand China. I actually don't meet many such people; I generally just hear about them, or read about them in news stories. But I sometimes hear myself saying similar things about the media when journalists talk about Hong Kong. I had one such awkward moment when Jon Stewart had his very funny bit about the Hong Kong protests. Coming a few days after the Alibaba listing, he remarked something to the effect of, "The Chinese are not only doing Wall Street better than us, they're now doing the "Occupy" better than us too!"  Most of us who heard that did a double-take, because of course Hong Kong, at least in this case, does not see itself as "China." Of course Hong Kong is part of China, but the protesters are asserting rights of local autonomy, so it suggests some confusion on his part to lump Hong Kong with "China." It ruins the joke, if you understand Hong Kong. I guess most Americans just laughed.

Then today on Fresh Air, David Edelstein said the following in a review of Laura Poitras' movie Citizenfour about Edward Snowden.

Poitras is very protective of her subject. She doesn't show Snowden a few days later praising Hong Kong's, quote, "spirited commitment to free speech and the right of public dissent," which would be cringe-worthy in light of the current crackdown on Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrators.

Well, why is it actually "cringe-worthy"? The protests are now in their 28th day, and are blocking very busy streets in three neighborhoods in a major city. There is no crackdown on free speech, or on the right of public dissent. I honestly can't think of any place in the world that would allow protesters to occupy public places like streets for four weeks. In the case of Occupy Wall Street, the protesters occupied Zuccotti Park because it was privately owned. Edelstein does not seem to understand the issues in Hong Kong: it is not about free speech, but about election rules. The protesters are occupying public spaces to pressure the government. I can't imagine any city in the US allowing such an occupation (well, maybe Berkeley and a few other places, but not New York or Chicago).

I don't say this to defend the Hong Kong government, but to defend Hong Kong society. Many in the pro-establishment camp in HK claim the protests make HK look bad, and Edelstein's uninformed comments suggest they might be right. Others have noted that the civility of the protests honor Hong Kong. But that is only true if Americans do not jump to the conclusion that there is no free speech or dissent in Hong Kong, just because they see riot police and some scuffles on TV. Hong Kong is very different from Mainland China. But uninformed comments and superficial views from the US make the patriotic Chinese right in arguing that Americans are hypocritical, because oftentimes Americans argue for the rights of protesters overseas but would never allow such protests to continue at home. The least the Americans could do is recognize the remarkable civility and peacefulness of the protests (for the most part), and the remarkable tolerance of the government (for the most part).

Of course, since many Americans think Hong Kong is in Japan, maybe I'm asking too much.

The two roads of protest

The umbrella movement has had two choices. One was to try to force the government’s hand to produce a more democratic system for the 2017 elections. Occupy Central tried to use the threat of civil disobedience to make the NPCSC promulgate democratic rules. On this, they failed. Some conservatives claim their very threat made the NPCSC fear allowing more democracy in Hong Kong, so had an opposite effect of what was intended.

The alternative was to create paradigm shift, to change public opinion so much that the government would have to change its position and allow more democracy. The political scientist Kuan Hsin-chi has written:

Gandhi put it nicely that a Civil Disobedience (CD) movement (more precisely, he called it satyagraha) succeeded not because of the powerful pressure exerted directly by the acts of the CD participants on the government, but rather because of a "change of heart" of the majority of the people who eventually became convinced of the morality represented by the movement. Once this change of heart happens, the government has no other choice but to agree to a change. In a nutshell, the impact of CD on social or political development is indirect, rather than direct. Social or political change often starts with advocacy of the minority against the powerful establishment with the indifferent majority of the people caught in the middle. Winning their heart is crucial for sociopolitical development.

The problem for the protesters is that they have viewed their movement as seeking to force the government. They believe they already represent the majority opinion. But there are many who believe Beijing will not yield. The People’s Daily has made it clear that Beijing views any compromise as a sign of weakness. Leaders feel they cannot compromise or it will encourage similar civil disobedience in other restive areas, from Xinjiang to Tibet. China already has thousands of protests flaring up every year. (Nevermind that this approach also makes the situation in Hong Kong seem even more hopeless and frustrating, and can lead to tragedy.)

The occupation of parts of Admiralty, Mong Kok, and Causeway Bay inconveniences some people. Others are simply offended that the protesters are breaking the law with impunity. Unfortunately, many who did or would support the movement have grown exasperated with the protests. And because the protests are spontaneous and the leadership is so diffuse, protesters are not focusing on educating the public about democracy and universal suffrage. They fail to rebut the pro-establishment’s anti-democratic arguments about “national security” and the “irrelevance of international standards.”

In the first few weeks of the protests, the idealism of the protesters awakened Hong Kong. Many who resignedly accepted the power of tycoons and the gradual imposition of undemocratic elections as inevitable were awakened and inspired to protest and take action to create better institutions. Many were embarrassed that it took students to wake them up and take a stand. The danger for the protesters is that the longer “occupations” drag on, the more the public’s frustration and anger at the protesters themselves will grow. Believing that they could force change on the government, the protesters have not pursued the Gandhian approach of trying to change the views of the indifferent majority to the pro-democratic cause. 

Many people sympathetic to the students wish they would declare victory and end the occupations, with the possibility of further protests in the future. But the protesters are determined to wring some concessions. They feel they have not achieved anything, because they define success and changing the government's policies. And in fact, if the protests end, there will be no changes; the government and Beijing will simply believe they were right and they won. 

The government has tried to argue that changes can be made in the future, that this is a long process. The protesters note that this has been said before, and they thought they were going to get "universal suffrage" when Democratic Party members accepted a compromise for the 2012 elections. They no longer trust the argument that changes can be made in the future. CY Leung's comments two days ago "that if the government met the pro-democracy protesters’ demands it would result in thecity’s poorer people dominating elections" only casts further doubts on the government's sincerity in promising more democracy in the future.

The comment also reminds us that democracy was nowhere achieved simply from the benevolence of the elites. As "the masses" increasingly viewed the system as unfair, protests for more say in the system erupted, and the elite were forced, step by step, to extend democracy. So maybe the students and other protesters are right that their only choice is to continue to occupy parts of Hong Kong. They are gambling that at some point, the elites will decide they have more to lose from constant protests than they do from elections. That might not be true in this round of protests, but the protesters have history on their side. Even Chiang Ching-kuo, the son of Chiang Kai-shek, decided to allow multi-party elections in 1986, realizing that the protests and problems of authoritarian rule were not worth the costs. In addition, the state was stronger once it had the mandate of the people through real elections. So it is hard to say the protesters in Hong Kong are wrong, though many worry about how these protests can end. And we worry that the result may be Hong Kong losing even more autonomy.

In the meantime, the government and protesters are deadlocked.

Farce of the Elite

One of the more absurd details, among the thousands of small and large incidents swirling around the protests, was the attempt by Derrick Pang of Chung Wo Development to punish Hong Kong University by cancelling its HK$20,000 scholarship to the university. The head of the HKU student union is quoted as claiming "this is a form of political suppression on academic freedom and the school's autonomy." Well, not really. A donor can give money for any purpose it wants, though of course a university can reject the money if the strings are too onerous or political. But Derrick's letter is a classic example of elite petulance.  Below is a copy (it is even amazing that he chose to release the letter).

This case illustrates one of the more astonishing aspects of Hong Kong elite culture and philanthropy. The scholarships the rich give to universities are mostly of this tiny size: HK$20,000 is only US$2,564. The HKU scholarship is for two students, so each student is getting just US$1,282 per year. Tuition at HK's universities is HK$42,000 per year, so the scholarship is only covering a bit less than a quarter of a student's tuition. I'm always astonished to see the long list of these tiny scholarships awarded, each with a company or person's name prominently attached, as though it was bringing prestige. I would think these small scholarships would be considered embarrassingly small.

I find the letter really captures the elite point of view. It accuses the university of leading to a divided Hong Kong, when of course the division comes from the government's failure to come up with a moderate election proposal that could marginalize the more radical protesters. The focus on "sound and effectual law system" ignores the frustration that decades of inaction on democracy and inequality have led to. I have no idea what the "political expediency" is that Mr. Pang refers to, but it is clear that in his hot-headed and grandstanding gesture aimed at "punishing" HKU, he has only hurt the students who would have otherwise gotten the scholarship, since none of the money went to the university anyway. Thus, we have another gesture (like a class boycott) that muddles its symbolism. But since it was not much money anyway, and not need-based, no big loss.

This story was in the blog feed of the SCMP yesterday, Sunday, but today it has been removed. I found it at HongWrong.com. I can't imagine why the SCMP removed the story.

Hegemony in Hong Kong

There are many arguments against the "umbrella movement" protest that I find odd. For example, the opponents of Occupy Central have long focused on the economic losses that would come from the civil disobedience. This is typical of Hong Kong; somehow, noting the economic cost is expected to convince people that protests are bad for everyone. I see this as an example of using an economic explanation to trump all other explanations. We see this often in Hong Kong, where economics reigns supreme.

More difficult for me to understand, however, have been those who argue that "Beijing has done so much for Hong Kong"--implying that the protesters are ungrateful and selfish. (See for example the commentary by Zhang Lijia in the SCMP who reports of CCTV colleagues in Nanjing, "The consensus is that the protesters are ungrateful.) This narrative of Beijing doing so much for Hong Kong goes back to the "Closer Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) signed in 2003, as the SARS crisis was receding. It was indeed intended to be a boost for the HK economy at a time that the SAR was experience an economic slowdown. But the agreement actually just lowered barriers and tariffs, so in fact both sides benefited, and it cannot be viewed as only a Beijing concession. CEPA has also caused many problems for Hong Kong, including the skyrocketing rents, conversions of shops into designer goods stores to cater to Mainland tourists, and the shortage of milk power. But the newspapers reported that angry anti-Occupy Central protesters yelled that students should be grateful for all that Beijing has done for Hong Kong, and I have met Mainlanders who say the same thing. I have always found this puzzling.

The other argument I find surprising is the fury at protesters for "breaking the law." Some seem to be deeply offended about civil disobedience and the challenge to authority that the students and Occupy Central represent. They raise "obeying the law" to a cardinal principle. Of course I believe in obeying the law, but it is pretty standard that protesters will break the law. As long as they don't break windows or bones, it seems OK. I don't remember opponents of "Occupy Wall Street" focusing on the importance of ending the illegal occupation of Zuccotti Park because it was illegal. Here, anti-Occupy people argue that the protesters are hurting Hong Kong's image, and that they are undermining the rule of law. I can partly understand this viewpoint, in that if one disagrees with the students, one would want them to simply obey the law. But I'm surprised that these critics do not see that in fact, peaceful demonstrations (even if illegal) can actually raise the image of a place (Jon Stewart jokes that now China is even holding protests better that the US! John Oliver and Steven Colbert also speak admiringly of the orderliness of the protests; see SCMP story here).  The other view, of course, is represented by HKU law professor Kelley Loper, who says "student protesters are not undermining Hong Kong's rule of law, but are opposing the use of the law as a tool of oppression" (SCMP commentary here).

I have thus been mulling over the question of why some protest opponents focus so much on the benevolence of Beijing and on the importance of obeying every law. I was surprised to find the answer in a textbook about sports. It mentions Gramsci, and his idea of hegemony:

he explained that leaders often maintained power by convincing the people that they governed of three three things: (1) that life was as good as it could be under present conditions, (2) that any positive things that people experienced were due to the goodwill and power of current leaders, and (3) that changing the current structure of their society would threaten everything that people valued. (Coakley Sports in Society p.115)

This really explains a lot. People who cannot imagine things being different, or who are wealthier ro privileged, are afraid the protesters will damage Hong Kong (and if the students protest until the PLA has to restore order, they will have turned out to be right).  Beijing officials and Hong Kong pro-establishment figures often use the rhetoric of Beijing being "good" to Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are China's "children" so Beijing would never do anything to hurt these areas. A Mainlander was quoted in the SCMP as arguing like this to protesters in Mong Kok. Like all governments, Beijing wants it to seem that all good and wealth flows from its policies. And some people believe it, submitting to Beijing's hegemony. Others may see through it, but think that since now Hong Kong is part of China, it is best to just keep quiet. The students are too "immature" to have learned this discourse. They have stood up, and present an alternative discourse. They do not see China as having helped Hong Kong with CEPA, they argue that they are opposed to Beijing using the law to oppress Hong Kong, and the apologize for any economic losses and inconveniences.

The September 28 Protests in Hong Kong

History looks different to every participant, so I wish to record what I saw at today’s protests, and some of the aspects that surprised me.

We went to the protest in part to support the students and partly out of curiosity. I have no intention of getting arrested, but I do think nonviolent support is important, and that it can make a difference in the long run if perhaps not immediately. We had already heard by 2:00 pm that the police had “locked down” the area at the government building, and were not allowing people to join the protesters. The radio did not explain why, but it said that many legislators and democracy figures, including Democratic Party chair Emily Lau, and the very moderate and soft-spoken former legislator Fernando Cheung, had been arrested and taken away to a police station in Aberdeen. The police had arrested the leader of the student group Scholarism, Joshua Wong, and had denied him bail. It is not clear what crimes they were being charged with.

Students directing people in MTR station

At the Admiralty MTR station, there were students telling people to go to Exit C2 and to walk by a circuitous route towards the protests, because the police had closed exit A. When we got out at ground level (now about 3:10), there were hundreds of people milling about, seemingly waiting for something. We soon realized, from their chants, that they were waiting for the police to “open the road” to allow them to cross Connaught Road to join protesters in Civic Square on the north side of Connaught Road (closer to the water). A few dozen police officers, with no weapons or shields, just riot helmets, were at the end of the road preventing this.

Police blocking protesters from road

While we were there, taking pictures, the protesters periodically chanted, but mostly waited. The crowd kept growing, but it was not restless. Volunteers started collecting water, food, masks, umbrellas, and other first aid materials, in a makeshift control center under some overhead passageways.

One odd thing was that the police kept walking through the crowd, for no apparent purpose. At one point, a dozen or so plain-clothes officers wearing “Police” vests and backpacks walked through the crowd (using the same corridor on the edge of the area, next to the new MTR station construction site) and joined the uniformed officers on Connaught Road. Then a group of over 20 officers walked quickly into the area, also down the same corridor but in the opposite direction, and stationed themselves as if they were guarding the construction site entrance to the MTR site. The crowd at time booed or gave thumb down signs to the police, and changed “retreat” to them, but did not harass them. Other police officers, sometimes in small groups of 5 or so, also pass through the group going who knows where. Thus, there was no front line, and it was not clear what the police was doing.

More police arrive to block protesters from Connaught Rd

We were thinking of leaving, and decided to have a look on the western side of Admiralty. I noticed that there were some fire department vehicles arriving, in particular an aerial rescue truck with ladders. Seemed odd, for a protest. When we got to Connaught Road, we saw that a man was standing on the edge of the overpass connecting Admiralty to the Central Government Offices. We surmised that he was threatening to jump. By the time I first saw him at 4:00, there were already officers talking to him. One in particular, with no hard hat or other equipment, held out his hand trying to get him to give up. We waited to see what would happen; it took longer than I expected.

Underneath, the traffic completely stopped. Already when we were there at 4:00, there was a yellow rescue cushion on the street level below him. Though Connaught Road is a 6-lane highway, there is a barrier in the middle dividing the two directions, so cars and buses could not turn around. Drivers could see what was happening, so they got out of their cars.

Protester on footbridge threatens to jump

While we waited, many tourists tried to walk down Connaught Road, but the police (there were only half a dozen) told them to go around. Bizarrely, two Mainlanders got very angry at the police too, and yelled at them in Mandarin. One woman said, “I’m a tourist! Where am I supposed to go?!” (我是旅游客，我怎麻走？)  One person yelled out, "Go home" (回家), which is essentially an anti-Mainlander slur. I felt like someone should say "I'm sorry our struggle for democracy has inconvenienced you!" but she would not have grasped the sarcasm.

At about 4:30, two officers in red, with helmets and wearing harnesses, crossed over the barrier and began to approach the protester from both sides. Oddly, the protester seemingly could not see what was happening, and at 4:32, the two officers in red jumped him and pushed him away from the ledge onto the ground, where he was presumably tied to a gurney we had seen earlier and then wheeled away.

We decided to have another look at where we’d been before leaving, and when we got there, we were shocked that the crowd was much smaller than before. But as we moved forward, we realized that what had happened is that for whatever reason, the line of police protecting Connaught Road had left, and the protesters had moved into the road. They had moved plastic temporary road barriers (used for the MTR station) and put them on their side to make a ramp to cross the cement barriers on the road. Then as we moved forward, we realized that there were several thousand people on the flyover leading from Wanchai to Admiralty. The crowd had gotten huge.

Students collect donated water & supplies

But not everyone is willing to be involved to the same degree. At one point, we noticed a lot of people leaving, so I asked someone next to me what had been just been said (it is all in Cantonese, and I understand maybe 20%). They explained that they had urged people to sit down as a protest, but that those who backed up did not want to sit down. They were there for support, but not to “Occupy Central” (of course, we were not in Central but Admiralty, so the “Occupy Central” movement has a bit of a marketing problem. Some protesters were complaining about this on the evening news).

We left at 5:30, feeling that this would go on well into the night. There had already been spurts of pepper spray from police into the protesters on the far side of the street. The police’s red banners were out several times warning that the police would use additional force if the protesters continued to charge. A human chain passed umbrellas and water to the front line, and we saw a police officer being led away, apparently a victim of heat stroke, and a young protester being taken on a wheeled gurney to an ambulance. When we arrived in Sham Shui Po for an errand, we saw on the TV of a shop (showing an underground station’s live footage) that the police had started using tear gas (and that it was blowing back into their own faces).

View left towards Central district, 17:23

View towards Central Government Square

View right, towards Wanchai

Crowd in Sham Shui Po watching protesters getting tear gassed

Earlier today, my wife was surprised when an acquaintance complained about the students. He said that Hong Kong is now part of China, we just have to get used to it. Michael Chugani, a columnist and Hong Kong gadfly, has been taking the same line. Some people take this “realist” position. Of course, many of them are wealthy, and prefer Communist style elections so as to preserve their privileges. Interestingly, no one in Hong Kong actually says the proposed reforms are actually good. To keep any semblance of credibility, all political figures have admitted that the NPCSC decision was disappointing. CY Leung and others try to claim that because everyone can vote, it will be better than the previous system (in which only 1200 generally pro-Beijing representatives voted). They may be right, but because no one trusts Beijing to liberalize further in the future, democrats will find it impossible to approve the NPCSC-proposed framework. Pan-democrats feel tricked because Beijing constrained “universal suffrage” with a Nominating Committee, which is the same old Electoral Committee, and increased the threshold for nomination from one eighth to one half of Nominating Committee votes.

At the same time, the pan-democrats and Occupy Central activists did not help their cause by insisting on “civil nominations,” even after Beijing had insisted that civil nominations did not comply with the Basic Law, and that the Nominating Committee had to have a role. They could have argued for a larger and more representative Nominating Committee. They could have argued to keep the one eighth threshold. But I wonder if anyone anticipated Beijing would raise the threshold to one half.

But now, Hong Kong is dividing in two: one either supports the students, or opposes them. Some critics insist the students are being manipulated by teachers or even by foreign forces. But others are inspired by the students. I am on an email list of Hong Kong professors, and I’m struck by how many have written that the students make them feel embarrassed that they have not done more up to now. They were saying that they were going to go to support the students today, because they were inspired by their courage.

The news tonight says the protesters are still at Admiralty in the thousands. I’m sure the government wants to clear them by the start of work tomorrow morning. I’m not sure they will be able to. And even if they do, what if they show up in Central tomorrow? How will this end? We got an email rumor claiming the PLA was moving into positions; that is very unlikely now, and would be a disaster for Hong Kong and for China. Surely, though Beijing was foolish in promulgating such conservative election rules, which have provoked the protests we see today. Right?

Fading overseas staff in Hong Kong

People often ask what has changed in Hong Kong since 1997, and I have always said that the first and biggest change was the change in immigration rules that made it difficult for Commonwealth residents to work in Hong Kong. Until April of 1997, anyone from Canada, Australia, the UK or other Commonwealth countries could work in Hong Kong without having to get a visa. That changed overnight, and the waiters at bars and restaurants suddenly changed from knowledgeable foreigners ("guailo") to Chinese. I remember that at the British pub "The Bull and Bear," we had to ask for ketchup for an order of fries and the waiter (and older Chinese man with poor English skills) could not understand why we wanted ketchup. Not a big deal, but it marked a difference.
Many of these travelers stayed on in Hong Kong and contributed a lot to the city's arts and cosmopolitan feel. Many worked in government, of course. And many were no doubt taking the places that qualified Chinese could have filled. It was colonial. But it also is part of what made Hong Kong different. These people are now increasingly retired or retiring. The SCMP reports that there are only 150 overseas officers in the force, compared to almost 800 at its peak. The manditory retirement of 55 will see most of these officers retire in the near future. I'm sure Chinese officers will be just as good, but many say that having two ethnic groups in the force made for a sort of "checks and balance" that gave people more confidence in the police.
The government has a mandatory retirement age of 60. The latest to be forced to retire was Bryan Curtis, who turned 60 on Sept. 18th. September 17th was his last day. Bryan Curtis had worked for ICRT in Taiwan, and I had heard him on the radio when I lived there in the 1980s. If I remember correctly, Curtis came to Hong Kong around 1992 and first worked for Commercial Radio, where I was happy to hear a familiar voice. It was like meeting an old friend. Later, as Commercial Radio dropped the English (it originally was bilingual, which was great for learning Cantonese, but that did not last), Curtis was on RTHK Radio 3. He is a natural on radio; he has great articulation, and is funny in a self-deprecatory way. He pronounces words like "what" as "hwat", which I think is the officially correct pronunciation.
Curtis has hosted a great program of financial news, "Money for Nothing," from 8:03 to 8:30. Each morning, he speaks with several guests. Some are regular, like Barry Wood, the US correspondent who was interviewed every Monday, while others are occasional guests, like Frances Cheung of Credit Agricole CIB (who is crazily articulate and concise). He had fun musical interludes like the start of "Pick up the Pieces" by the Average White Band, or the first line from "You Never Give Me Your Money" by the Beatles, and of course, "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits.. It was live radio, so not perfect, but very well done, interesting and informative.
Whenever Bryan Curtis was away reporting or on vacation, the program was difficult to listen to. They tried various alternative hosts, but none really worked. They were tentative, stumbled on names and facts, asked poor questions, and generally seemed to lack the knowledge and confidence to pull it off. Most of all, they were stiff and made the listener cringe.  On the 18th, the first day sans Bryan, they brought back a former replacement  host and a guest, trying to use two people to replace one Bryan. All I can say is that I could not listen. I turned on my BBC and NPR podcasts instead.
I once complained that one of the replacements was really dreadful and not up to the job, and was told that it is hard to get talent with the restrictions on visas. Only people with permanent HK IDs can now be hired at RTHK. As the more experienced old hands retire, the radio station is thus declining. It is clear that, from one point of view, an English language radio station is a remnant colonial institution. But it is also what makes Hong Kong a cosmopolitan city.
Change is always difficult, so retirements are not fun. Bryan got choked up as his colleagues thanked him for his many years of work at RTHK at the end of his last show.  For me, radio voices are like friends, even if they don't know me. Bryan Curtis will be missed.