Enoch Lam, a very high-profile pastor-comedian in Hong Kong, recently asked his fans on Facebook, “How should (Christians) respond to the recent controversial comments made by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz regarding the company’s support of gay marriage?”

This is the same Pastor Lam who once equated homosexuality with drug abuse and theft. Lam also said that “even though homosexuality is inborn, it doesn’t mean that it is legal.” (Oh Hong Kong, you can be so bigoted when you want to be.)

It’s no surprise, then, that the answers Lam got went something like this:

“In order to obey God’s laws on defending marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, we (Christians) should boycott Starbucks! (We’re) determined to uphold traditional marriage!”

“If boycotting Starbucks means supporting traditional marriage between a man and a woman, then I’ll never visit any Starbucks again!”

“As far as I know from the Bible, gays and lesbians are abnormal and homosexuality is a sin.”

Some Christians who support the boycott also point out that they shouldn’t purchase any Starbucks products, as the company’s logo is an image of a lascivious siren in Greek mythology. Pagans!

What these people are experiencing here is spritual mysophobia. But the reality is, pagan images are everywhere, to say nothing of companies that support gay rights. Nike, for example, is the name of an Egyptian god. And Jeremy Lin, the darling of many Chinese Christian churches, is one of Nike’s spokespersons. Oh yeah, Nike happens to support gay marriage, too.

Levi’s, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM… boycott them all, you crazies. Lest you want to be called a mindless hypocrite who follows a dogmatic pastor.

The largest television station in Hong Kong, TVB, has been catching flak for the reduced quality of its entertainment programs, from soap operas to games shows. Recently, the station introduced a new travel show, “Nat Around The World” (叻哥遊世界), in which host Natalis Chan travels luxuriously with his friends to places such as Dubai, Milan, London, Tanzania, and, of course, mainland China. The episode aired on March 7 and has received particularly harsh criticism from Hong Kong netizens for being extremely ostentatious.

In the episode, Natalis and his friends are greeted by two so-called local celebrities, and together they enjoy a dinner worth HK$60,000. Natalis humbly shows his “cheapest” mobile phone to his friends – one that’s worth HK$2.8 million.

Natalis’s phone looks like an ordinary low-end fold-up, and its specifications are probably slightly better than a Nokia 3310. So why is this phone so expensive? The host reveals the secret – melded into the mobile is a tourbillon watch.

Who but a parvenu would purchase such a thing? Next time, to show off, perhaps Natalis can glue the deeds to his house to his mobile.

Or maybe he can film himself giving to charity. At least that type of flaunting won’t cause viewers to call him an idiot for carrying such lavishly nonsensical items.

The idea of “national education” as school curriculum was nixed after widespread protests last year, but the National Education Parents’ Concern Group recently discovered that some commonly used primary school textbooks are very biased and use overly affective expressions to teach students “how to build a better sense of belonging to the motherland.”

One Chinese language textbook requires students to be emotional when reading a patriotic poem — for example, by using high pitched tone and reading very slowly. Another English textbook posits that many children call themselves “HK people,” but that this concept is not technically ideal — instead, one should say, “I am a Chinese citizen living in Hong Kong.”

In addition, a fifth-grade general studies textbook, when describing the foundation of New China, only talks about how Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China and how the party led the whole country toward prosperity. Dark histories such as the Great Famine, Cultural Revolution and June Fourth Incident are omitted.

Some textbooks teach students to feel proud to be Chinese. But why? Alas, a government can’t brainwash the children to be patriotic, as propaganda can’t last forever. Our advice: do something ethical, treat your people well and bear your international responsibilities – that, better than anything, would make your people proud.

Mandarin with feeling:

Hong Kong lawmaker Chan Yuen-han (陈婉娴) and some scholars have recently suggested converting shipping containers into temporary housing, youth hostels or art studios. These containers could be set up under the city’s nearly 2,000 vehicle flyovers and pedestrian footbridges. Ms. Chan believes the living environment of these shelters would be far better than the notorious “cage” or “coffin homes,” where many of the city’s poorest currently live. More than one seventh of the Hong Kong population lives under the poverty line, according to the latest Oxfam’s report, even though the average per capita GDP exceeds HK$266,000.

“For example, living under noisy flyovers may be a problem, but if you have lived in City Garden (one of the top 10 private housing estates in Hong Kong), then you’d know that City Garden is way noisier,” Chan said. “That means there’s something we can do (to handle the noise problem).”

Notice what Chan does not address: the thousands of homeless who currently occupy the spaces below these overpasses. What will become of them? This is a city that’s been known to spray down the areas where vagrants sleep several times per night, and to send officials to confiscate their personal belongings. Now the homeless are being forced to compete for territory with tenants of these proposed crate boutiques?

It’s understandable for the Honorable Ms. Chan to propose solutions for Hong Kong’s housing shortage. Everyone involved in this project, however, might want to think twice about it, or at least do some on-the-street research.

(Image Sharp Daily)

Need some relationship advice on Valentine’s Day? Listen to a lawmaker in Hong Kong.

Ann Chiang, vice president of the largest pro-government political party in Hong Kong, taught wives “how to be open-hearted and get their husbands to come home” in Apple Daily.

Chiang married her husband 16 years ago when she was 42. She thought that the most important thing between husband and wife was, not surprisingly, “trust.”

“You must give your husband enough space and be self-confident. I’m confident that my husband will always come back home so I never check his mobile and text messages.”

And more:

“I can imagine that, when a middle-aged guy goes to a party and is surrendered by young women, he must be quite happy. But I’m confident that, however happy my husband is when interacting with other women, he’d always come home and find peace. Wives must make home a comfortable shelter for their husbands.”

But what if the husband still doesn’t want to go home when the wife has already done all she can for him? Ann Chiang further advises – set him free.

We already know that Chiang’s very tolerant in relationships – she once defended CY Leung’s failure to remove an illegal structure at his home in a Legislative Council meeting, saying that, “As a busy working man, CY has to fly in and out of Hong Kong on business. Many men are on their business trips and forget their wedding anniversaries, let alone when their illegal structure was built!”

So listen up ladies: Trust your spouse blindly, even though he may be creeping around on you. Home is the most important thing in a marriage. And everything is acceptable as long as your man comes back eventually.

No wonder some women say no to marriage.

Recently, Lunar New Year Messages from the British Consulate General in Hong Kong and Macau have been among the most talked about videos in Hong Kong. The total views, including both Cantonese and English (above) versions, have surpassed 85,000 in four days.

Not surprisingly, it’s the Cantonese version that’s drawn the most attention. It’s not just because Caroline Wilson, the British Consul General to Hong Kong and Macau, speaks in Cantonese, but because she writes in traditional Chinese.

And the video is titled “Lunar New Year,” not “Spring Festival,” the literal translation of the modern Chinese name. People never use the term “Spring Festival” in Hong Kong.

The US Consulate General in Hong Kong and Macau also uploaded a Chinese New Year Greetings video to YouTube, and you can find some Gangnam Style in it. Indeed, the American Institute in Taiwan has uploaded a similar video, which is even funnier than the one from Hong Kong.

Both the US and British videos have received positive comments, mainly because Hong Kongers appreciate the local traditions and cheerfulness that are depicted. By the way, if you have time, you may want to view CY Leung’s one-minute video. In it, the chief executive wishes Hong Kong people and their families happiness, good health and great success in the year ahead.

In other words: economic development and prosperity. Boring. But at least better than President Hu’s.

A piece of friendly advice to the propaganda department in China: please do something creative with Xi Jinping in his future New Year address — simply change the backdrop, play some music, and remind Xi to smile more.

Google previously disclosed that it received nearly 450 requests from the Hong Kong government to hand over user data in 2012, an increase of 38% from the year prior. Recently, the Commerce and Economic Development, in a written reply to the Legislative Council, revealed for the first time that the government made more than 14,000 requests to Internet service providers (ISPs) for disclosure of their users’ information over the past three years.

According to government information, the Hong Kong Police Force made the most requests, asking for user data 12,501 times. Most cases require the ISPs to disclose the user name, identity card number and other personal information for reasons such as prevention and detection of crime. While there’s no information on how often ISPs acceded, one’s thing for sure – none of the requests were made under a court order (see here and here).

Even though it’s agreed that government departments may from time to time need user data for law enforcement purposes, the fact that they can bypass the court is disturbing. Currently, there’s no mechanism to regulate requests made by the government to various ISPs for disclosure or removal of user information. And an Internet user would never know that his or her online data is in the government’s hand — that is, until the until the police knock on the door.

Recently in Hong Kong, a male pedestrian fainted on the street outside a busy Jockey Club Center. Two men nearby, ages 59 and 53, witnessed the incident and tried to rouse the pedestrian. Failing that, they came to the conclusion that they should call the police, but an important question remained – which one of them should pick up the phone and dial 999?

Oriental Daily continues this strange tale. The two men began arguing that the other person should make the call, and eventually the quarrel turned into a violent fight. Remember that poor guy lying on the ground? Yes, no worries, he’s still there. The fight drew other people’s attention, and then a third man joined in, and you know how things can become so much more complicated in a threesome.

Finally, someone did call the police. An ambulance arrived and took the injured men to the hospital — but not the one that had been unconscious. While the other three had been fighting, he woke up and quietly left the scene, so no one has any idea what happened to him or if he’s OK.

Police took the three brawlers into custody for fighting in public.

Lesson learnt – God helps people who help themselves. If you faint on the street, rely on yourself and no one else.

The above video, posted two days ago, depicts about 20 staffers of Liaoning province’s Anshan District People’s Procuratorate beating five petitioners on September 29, 2010.

It’s no secret that police officers often beat and humiliate petitioners to deter people from further petitioning. But this time, those on the receiving end of the abuse were themselves cops.

According to local news, the Procuratorate accused five officers of using torture during interrogations. The officers denied the charge, petitioned in front of the Procuratorate building, and were promptly beaten.

It’s predictable how the Anshan District Security Bureau handled this case – no investigation, no punishment, nothing. They simply asked those involved to remain silent.

So what we have here are police, accused of brutality, being brutalized by what might be other police. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

The Hong Kong government has recently been criticized by Internet users for using a Putonghua (common tongue Mandarin) term in its new Chinese opera theater’s English name. Instead of giving it an actual English or even Cantonese name, the new facility is simply the Xiqu Centre (戏曲中心).

The government explains that Chinese opera is different from Western opera, so “Xiqu” is used to differentiate itself.

Yes, we know everything in China is different from the West. If we follow the Hong Kong (or Xianggang?) government’s concept, Chinese medicines should be renamed “zhongyao” (中药), as Chinese and Western medicines are not the same.

There are a few more examples: mooncake as “yuebing” (月饼), Chinese martial arts as “wushu” (武术), democracy as “minzhu” (民主), as the Beijing government has its own interpretation of democracy with Chinese characteristics.

And how can we forget the ruling party? Propaganda officials should start forcing foreign media to refer to the party as “zhongguo gongchandang” to distinguish it from other (existing) communist parties in the world.

English translations should be simple, clear, and in proper English. “Chinese opera” is easy to understand, but Xiqu — what? You can’t even pronounce it properly without learning Mandarin. And if foreigners can’t pronounce it, how does the Chinese government expect to promote the art to the rest of the world?

No wonder the Chinese often claim that foreigners don’t understand them. Sometimes, they really don’t, literally.

Mothers in Hong Kong have been complaining (again) that they can’t get sufficient milk powder for their babies because mainland shoppers are buying the powder in bulk.

According to the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong government, last year the city imported more than 37,900,000 kg of baby milk powder. The government has already increased the import by more than 30% in recent months, but sadly that amount of milk powder can’t satisfy the increasing demand from mainland shoppers.

Thanks to the sharp increase in demand, the price of milk powder has risen about 10-15% in Hong Kong. But even if you have the money, you have to compete with the Chinese shoppers who, instead of doing the hard work themselves, hire local elderly people and housewives to queue outside supermarkets and retail shops to wait for new supplies. Rate? HK$20 per can, according to a local newspaper. And the Chinese shoppers then resell the milk powder back on the mainland. Brilliant.

Hong Kong isn’t the only place where this is happening. Media in the Netherlands and Germany also report that Chinese people sweep supplies of milk powder from shop shelves, triggering countrywide shortage.

The backlash has been predictable. We know that food safety in China is rubbish, but please, people say, don’t try to solve your problems by robbing other people’s resources and causing unnecessary global panic.