For anyone who is willing to read what I write this time, I want to reiterate to you that depression patients still have the ability to have own political views, and I decide to talk about politics this time because I hope no psychiatrists or medical professionals would judge their patients on their political view ever again. On top of that, I also want to recommend a movie. (*I have no intention to persuade you who are reading this to share my political view, you should have your own views anyways.)
If you have read what I wrote in the past, perhaps you can recall that I have said one reason being which I didn’t stick to the first psychiatrist I saw was because she in a way offended me. I sensed the implication behind her question which she brought up in our first counselling session – ‘Are you a yellow ribbon or blue ribbon (that means ‘are you for or against the Umbrella Movement/Occupy Central)’, and asked whether I felt afraid of this social movement. I refused to answer her and in return asked her to show some courtesy by not to assess my mental health based on my political opinion. She however kept on asking me the same question by rephrasing it and then I just had to insist on repeating that I would not give an answer to this question in her small consultation room. If you meet a psychiatrist like her, I bet you just wouldn’t even bother arguing with her, which was what I did so I never see her again.
如果你讀過我在過去寫的帖文，也許你可以回想起，我說過其中一個原因我看過的第一位精神病醫生在某種程度上冒犯了我， 讓我沒有再去找她覆診。 當時我感到她的問題背後帶有暗示，就是在我們第一次診症會面時我被問到 – 「你是黃絲或是藍絲呢（即時說她問我贊成或反對雨傘運動/佔領中環）？」，之後再問我會不會對這社會運動感到害怕。在那小診症室裡，我拒絕回答她，反過來要求她去給我禮貌與尊重，不要根據我的政治觀點來評估我的心理健康。 她沒有放棄去不斷地問我這個問題，然後我就堅持重複我是不會在她給的這個問題給她答案的。 如果你遇到像她這樣的精神科醫生，我敢打賭你甚至不會有心機與她爭論，這也是我當時所做的，所以我從此就沒有在去看她了。
I couldn’t imagine what she would say if I remained as her patient and told her that I just went to watch a human rights movie here in London based on those people who were iconic figures of the movement and I even spoke to one of the ‘film subjects’ after the movie. The movie was one of many films of ‘Human Rights Watch Film Festival’ and is called ‘Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower’.
如果我仍然是她的病人，然後我告訴她，我最近在倫敦看了一部人權電影基於在那些在該運動的標誌性人物，再之後又和其中一位「電影人物」談話，我想不出她會說出什麼來。 這部電影是「人權電影節」中的許多電影之一，叫做「Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower」。
Some people said that it is better to stay silent in even avoiding to put up that ‘yellow umbrella’ picture as Facebook profile picture during the time of the movement or have deleted it afterwards. This is in case that it would become an obstacle to get a job at any government sectors which are all supposed to be pro-Beijing, I did not and will not want to do the same, especially after I have watched this movie. If civilians are so afraid to the extent of not even daring to put up a picture like this or expressing a few lines criticising either the Hong Kong or the Mainland government, we accelerate our own doomed days to come. Even the birth of democracy may not ever be seen, at least slow down the time till we get completely blocked out from voicing out to the whole wide world.
有些人說在這政治事件上最好保持沉默，甚至避免在運動發生的時候都避免把「黃傘」的圖片作為Facebook個人頭像或應該後來刪除它。那是因為避免「黃傘」將成為一個找在任何政府部門的工作的障礙，任何政府部門都應該是「親北京的」，而我沒有也不會想之後這樣做，而我看過這部電影後更加不想這樣做。 如果普通市民們都如此害怕，甚至不敢張貼這樣的圖片或不敢寫幾行批評香港或內地政府的話語，我們會加速我們自己注定要來的倒霉日子。 即使民主的誕生日也許永遠都不會到來，至少減慢那可吧我們完全可以向整個外面的世界發聲的時間運行。
I didn’t come up with the idea of describing the government as ‘Darth Vader’ since I am no fans of Star Wars; it was the guy named Derek (the former student member of the pro-democracy student group Scholarism) who called it that way in the movie and I liked it, so here you go. This is a must-see movie because for political reason, our Hong Kong government would not allow this to be on big screen(it’s on Netflix though), I think this goes without having me to make further explanation. The number of audience who attended this movie session looked roughly just below a hundred, but it was a full house.
把政府描述為「黑武士」不是我的想法，因為我都不是星球大戰的粉絲; 這是叫Derek的男生（學民思潮的前學生成員）在電影中這樣稱呼它，我又幾鐘意這個稱呼，所以在用了「黑武士」做標題。 這是一部非常值得看的電影，而因為政治原因，不需要我進一步解釋，我們的香港政府不會允許這在大屏幕上面上影（不過可在Netflix上收看啊）。 參加這次電影會的觀眾人數大約有一百多人，但也坐滿了。
Let me do a synopsis of the movie: it is a documentary about Joshua Wong and his peers. The movie first reminded audience briefly that there was a Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 4th June in Beijing where troops were sent out forcing students to stop their protest against the government via the means of violence, and then it began to talk about how Joshua Wong had founded Scholarism when he was thirteen and was campaigning for the abolishment of National Education(a subject in which students would possibly brainwash them in a way about patriotic values) at high schools in Hong Kong, and since then the film makers had already began following every move of him till now, which is 7 years later.
Gradually, other members of the Scholarism group appeared in the movie and then it was moved on to scenes depicting the Umbrella Movement where students in Hong Kong echoed the idea to demand universal suffrage, civilians got hurt by the police who forced them to stop occupying public places, Joshua and his peers got arrested. The movie put emphasis on how Joshua and his mates worked as iconic figures to lead many others during the time. The movie also featured different scholars talking about their views on Joshua Wong and his peers, and you would laugh at the end when the spoke person of the SCMP newspaper agency, who having showered Joshua Wong praises after praises throughout the movie joked in answering a question about what is his view to the Chinese president. He simply laughed it off by asking the interviewer whether this was a trap for him to get kidnapped, recalling to the kidnapping incident of a few members who are involved in publishing books criticising the Mainland Chinese government, and marked the end of the movie.
Then there was a Q&A session where members of Scholarism then came to the front of the screen, including not just Joshua Wong but also Derek, Agnes and Nathan. They basically repeating their ethos for democracy and that since Scholarism was no longer in existence because they had instead formed a political party now, Joshua Wong announced that he would try to run for a place the Legislative Council(LegCo) in the next election when he will finally be of the legal age to be a candidate. Once everybody was out of the cinema room, most audience went after Joshua Wong to talk to him. For one moment he seemed like a superstar holding a fan meeting, but I don’t see that this movie has given Joshua Wong a chance to show off how well he has been actively dealing with politics for years, but it just reminds people that teenagers of such a young age have not given up on trying to demand what is impossible despite the oppression they have received.
之後有一個問答環節，那時候學民思潮的成員來到了螢幕前面，有黃之鋒，也包括Derek，周庭和羅冠聰。他們基本上重複對於爭取民主的精神，而學民思潮現在已經不再存在，他們已經成立了一個政黨，黃之鋒宣布他將會試圖在下屆立法會爭取議席， 因為那時候才會有成為一個候選人的法定年齡。 當每個人都離開了電影院，大多數觀眾跟隨黃之鋒去跟他說話。有一刻，他似乎是一個超級明星在舉行粉絲見面會，但我不認為這部電影給了他一個機會去炫耀他多年來積極處理政治做得多麼好，但電影只是提醒了人們，儘管受到壓迫，有些年輕人沒有試圖放棄去要求不可能的事。
Call me naive but I was touched by the movie. Instead of queuing up to talk to Joshua Wong, I went up to talk to Nathan just to properly say, thank you for the effort that he and his peers have put in all these years and naively I said, please run for a place at the LegCo again when it is confirmed that he would be disqualified/kicked out of it. He politely shook my hand with both of his hands with his body bowing slightly to say thank you in return and goodbye.
This movie makes you smile at times at beautiful scenes when you see the unity of the Hong Kongers putting up their umbrellas in Central at the same time, and it makes you sad when you see the government officials have refused time after time to speak to the activists(especially when you see the face of CY Leung) and breaks your heart when the civilians who participate at the movement were hit by the police or hurt by the tear gas.
I just realised I kind of wrote a mini essay about this movie! But if not for the movie, I won’t know I am that attached to this place named Hong Kong. I know I will never be that passionate and active in making changes to my homeland, but at least, I respect people around my age who do take into action to such a great extent. I will just continue to openly express my thoughts on political matters when I feel like it. This is because sooner or later, Hong Kongers would lose the freedom of expression and typing a blog post like this would be censored, or let’s say ‘harmonised’ and then erased.
我發現我好像為這部電影作了一篇迷你論文！ 但如果不是為了電影，我不知道我對這個名為香港的地方有這麼深的感情。 我知道我永遠都不會那麼熱情和積極地改變我的家鄉，但至少，我尊重在我的年齡肯在這麼大程度上採取行動的人。當我有感覺的時候，我會繼續公開表示我對政治問題的想法。 這是因為遲早，香港人會失去言論自由，這樣的博客帖子會被審查，或者說被「何蟹／和諧」，然後被刪除。