With the advert of June, there are different kinds of memorial ceremonies of the June 4th Incident. A new publication, the Apply Daily, is even making its debut on this specific day. And there would still be numerous articles evaluating the incident.
"To learn a lesson from the incident" is what everyone wants. Last year, many editorials suggested that Hong Kong people should be more aware of the political changes in mainland China and accept the incumbent Chinese authorities despite the mistakes they made during the student movement. A compromising attitude with China is the most positive and constructive way for Hong Kongers to help in China's path to democracy, they said. And it can be done by a close trading relationship.
Retrieving history, what the June 4th Incident means is not merely a date of a massacre; neither is it an incident of authorities killing innocent and nonviolent students. In fact, though the students criticized the authorities, they were not demanding a direct power redistribution in any form. Their demands were simply two - one, to affirm positively the importance of this student movement; and two, to have discussion with the students about the future development of China. The hunger strike was merely headed for a discussion. They did not get any concrete power or weapons from the students and the hunger strike was what they could do - to sacrifice their bodies just to get a talk and a fair judgement.
The ways the students tried to realize their demands were not actualizing on an equal base. They were ready to sacrifice themselves even with a compromise that they would not ask for any practical reform like reform for press freedom or the release of political prisoners. A discussion with the authorities was what they wanted.
We recall the unpublished Mao programme of the Television Broadcasting Limited and the six resignation from the Asia Television Limited' news staff. The idea of helping China achieve democracy through close trading relationship is thus ridiculous, if we cannot have freedom of expression even in Hong Kong. This suggestion of the editorials is merely an justification that we are afraid of the Chinese authorities and the threats of facing 1997.
The students killed were making minimal demands on the authorities. Any opinion implying what is practical, positive, is just some excuse which devalued the principles that the students and the Beijing citizens have held in the past and even now.