'HK Politics' ↓

I was glad to join the democracy march yesterday with thousands of people, not only because it was a way to express myself, but also I saw and felt in the march the diversity and independent thinking that Hong Kong is losing gradually under the post-1997 governments.

I cannot tell you how much disappointment I have in the Hong Kong government headed by Chief Executive Donald Tsang. The latest saga is the appointment of deputy secretaries and political assistants under the so called “accountability” system. When the city is not pushing ahead with its democracy, our Chief Executive is pushing for this appointment accountability system. But when its people have no vote and no say in the government affairs, who are these officials accountable to? Of course not to us. And certainly to Mr Tsang, their boss, who appoints them.

Do you see the irony here? When the people here are demanding democracy, the government is going the opposite way, under the fancy word of “accountability’.

The appointments of deputy secretaries and political assistants have been under barrage of attacks by the wide local community for its lack of transparency and the showing of nepotism. What are these appointees’ responsibilities? How were they selected? Based on what criteria are they remunerated? The government has never been able to give us satisfactory answers. Not to mention that it did not come up with fuzzy answers until pressurized.

When the controversy has evolved to the detriment of his reputation, Mr Tsang came to the Legislative Council, urging the community to let the dust settle, so that the community can focus on the livelihood issues.

Give me a break! Does he know that we people want quality of life as well? We want clean air, clear sky and open space. We are not individuals just wanting to make a living and surviving on this planet. This government knows only to follow the talk of its boss in the mainland and is glaringly out of touch with the pulse of the city that it governs. That is why people here go to the democracy march year after year on 1 July, the Hong Kong back to China day.

A sign of relief. The Olympics torch relay in Hong Kong is finally over! Despite the excitement of crowds for the relay, shown on TV, I, as many others whose voice can be hardly heard, was just indifferent, and even numb.

Who are on the list of torch bearers? Besides some athletes, there are 21 business tycoons, 13 politicians and eight artists (singers/movie stars), all pro-China. Not even one grassroots representative or a member of the democratic camp was invited to relay the torch. 

Whenever I hear that Beijing Olympics should not be boycotted because sport has nothing to do with politics, I just want to laugh. Better give some other reason than this! Sport has been, and is always intertwined with politics. Hong Kong’s torch relay list of bearers speaks volume. Not to mention the vehement patriotism shown across China.

And there are just so many things that give me the sense that the Hong Kong torch relay is not a cause for jubilation. There are: the visa curb because of the Olympics, which causes so much inconvenience to so many travellers/business people; the turning away of Danish artist Jens Galschiot; and quiz of potential protesters by police ahead of the torch relay. I cannot but feel puzzled as to why those appearing on the TV seemed so excited.

The China Government dictated today that Hong Kong people can only choose their head of government in 2017 - 10 years from now - I hope I am still alive. As for the universal suffrage for legislative council (i.e. parliament), that will be implemented after the universal suffrage of the chief executive of Hong Kong. No timeline has been set on this.       

In the public consultation carried out by the Hong Kong government earlier, over 50% of the Hong Kong people support universal suffrage of chief executive and legislative council in 2012. However, our current chief executive Donald Tsang recommended to the China central government that it is better for Hong Kong to have the universal suffrage in 2017, though he admitted that over 50% of the Hong Kong people want universal suffrage in 2012.

He is appointed by the China Government and knows what his boss wants. So to no one’s surprise, the China Government has adopted his suggestions.  

And do not imagine that we can have real universal suffrage in 10 years time. Who can be the candidates and how are they produced? We, Hong Kong people, have no say on the rule of the election game. Will you trust the China government to allow Hong Kong real democracy when it dictates that this city’s people can only choose their government head, not to mention legislative council, in ten years time? The answer is abundantly clear.

Of course, it is understandable that why China does not want Hong Kong to have democracy. It is the fear of people in Mainland China to demand democracy, following the example set by Hong Kong.

Hong Kong won’t have real democracy, unless there is major change in China politically. And I don’t see that is coming. So I don’t see Hong Kong people can have real democracy anytime soon. Not in 10 years - that is for sure.

I was shocked to hear from the news that the Hong Kong Canto pop song “At the foothill of the Lion Mountain” (獅子山下) was named the most well known “national affair song”(國情歌) in a survey among secondary students. How was it possible that the song is about national affair when the song, as every Hong Kong adult knows, is the theme song of a very popular TV series in the 70s about the lives of Hong Kong people? It is a song about Hong Kong, a city, not China, the whole country.
[youtube]nQoyjO56noE[/youtube]
I am not blaming the secondary students for the survey result, but I do blame the organization which conducted the survey, the Boys and Girls’ Club of Hong Kong. This was a glaring distortion of historical facts. How can the NGO did such a thing to the yet-to-mature minds of secondary students? It is obvious that history is easy to distort, not to mention a survey.

The reason to distort history in this case is understandable. The buzz word in the town nowadays is patriotism and nationalism. So even if something has nothing to do with nationalism/national affair, some people will make it possible that “this something” finds its way to relate to it.

Hong Kong, sadly, is losing its diversity and identity day by day.

News about Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang’s stupid comment which compares China’s Cultural Revolution to etreme democracy was banned in China.

In Shenzhen, Hong Kong’s neighbouring city, residents are able to view Hong Kong TV programmes and news. Last Saturday when the Hong Kong evening TV news broke that Tsang made the stupid comment, the Shengzhen residents saw only advertisements, instead of the actual broadcast of the news, a result of the censorship by the local and central government.

The Chinese government is adept at censorship, as always. But this time it was unusual that the person to be censored is a high-ranking government-appointed official, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive. Tsang has made the history.   

I know Donald Tsang, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, is not a politician, but only a civil servant, as he has always been; I know he is not a leader, but only an administrator.

But I never expected that he can be so bad. He can be so ignorant of history that in a radio program, he cited China’s Cultural Revolution as an extreme case of democracy, while Cultural Revolution is in fact a good example of how dictatorship can destroy a whole country.

Further, Tsang thinks if people have all the power, there can’t be good governance. In other words, democracy, people’s power, is at odds with social development and good governance.

It cannot be clearer that why Tsang was picked by Beijing to be the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. His idea about people’s power/democracy, something Chinese government is very fearful about, is just so similar to that of his boss.

View here for the text of Tsang’s interview on the radio program.

In case you don’t know, in China, when the leadership makes a speech, clapping hands in support of the points they make, from time to time, is common practice. But how can the people know when they should applaud? Easy, the leadership will raise the tone at places intended to be applauded, and then the public will know and acknowledge by clapping hands.

I was watching news yesterday on TV and could not help hold Hong Kong’s chief executive Donald Tsang in awe. Gosh, he was so good in imitating the Chinese leadership when making a speech to the Hong Kong-based Chinese army (PLA, People’s Liberation Army). Where he praised the army for its professionalism and friendliness, he skillfully raised the tone at the end of the sentence, and immediately the audience of the soldiers exploded in applauding. I found it both funny and pathetic.

Well, there must be reasons why Mr Tsang can be HK’s chief executive, and the above episode demonstrates why: You have to behave and think like you boss does.

It is saddening for HK, whose people have worked so hard to build the port city into a world renowned city, only to see they have no say in who with what attributes to lead them, and are told economic prosperity is the only thing they treasure. Their voice is fabricated and not heard.

When the government is spending a great deal of money to celebrate the 10 year anniversary of HK’s return to China, I find myself indifferent to all the fanfare.