• Tue
  • Jul 22, 2014
  • Updated: 10:19pm
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 25 September, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 25 September, 2013, 3:27am

Hong Kong's road to universal suffrage is paved with contradictions

Frank Ching says the uproar over British official's comment shows the complexity of Hong Kong's political development, now and in the past


Frank Ching opened The Wall Street Journal’s bureau in Beijing in 1979 when the U.S. and China established diplomatic relations. Before that, he was with The New York Times in New York for 10 years. After Beijing, he wrote the book Ancestors and later joined the Far Eastern Economic Review.

British Minister of State for Asia Hugo Swire set off a firestorm with his article voicing support for universal suffrage. On one level, it does seem hypocritical for a British official to say that "Britain stands ready to support" Hong Kong's move towards universal suffrage when, in fact, Britain obstructed democratic development when Hong Kong was its colony.

Indeed, until Britain agreed to return Hong Kong to China, there were no elections to the Legislative Council. So it is somewhat contradictory for Britain today to depict itself as a champion of democracy. But then Hong Kong is full of contradictions.

In fact, China itself is on rather delicate ground when its foreign ministry, in response to Swire's article, asserted that "Hong Kong once suffered under colonial rule for a long time".

It is unclear to what period of time the ministry was referring. Historically, the British colony provided safety for Chinese fleeing political turmoil or tyrannical rule on the Chinese mainland for over a century. Revolutionaries like Dr Sun Yat-sen, wanted by the Manchu government for attempting to overthrow the dynasty and establish a republic, were safe in Hong Kong, precisely because it was under British administration.

Even communist agents made use of the British presence to operate in the colony, where they were beyond the reach of the Kuomintang government.

And just as British Hong Kong provided refuge to communists before 1949, after the establishment of the People's Republic it offered a haven to those who wished to flee communist rule.

Many of the people now praised as patriots by the communist government are in Hong Kong because their parents fled from the communists. The shipowner Y.K. Pao moved from Shanghai to Hong Kong on the eve of the communist takeover and, ironically, subsequently forged a special bond with Deng Xiaoping . Another shipping magnate, C.Y. Tung, the father of Hong Kong's first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, was also a refugee from the Chinese communists.

The list is long. In fact, the majority of the residents of the special administrative region are here because their parents or grandparents couldn't stand the idea of living under communist rule. Suffering "under colonial rule" was evidently considered a much better alternative to life in the communist paradise being created by the party.

Last year, a boatful of Hong Kong political activists landed on the Japanese-administered Diaoyu Islands to assert Chinese sovereignty. The Japanese media depicted them as pro-China activists but many are not even allowed to visit the mainland because, in Beijing's eyes, they are not patriots.

But, of course, it is possible to be a Chinese patriot as well as anti-Communist at the same time. It is important to keep this in mind, at a time when Beijing is insisting that any chief executive hopeful must be a patriot. Let's also remember that Hong Kong's democrats, often accused of being unpatriotic, were the first to welcome the return of the British colony to Chinese sovereignty.

Hong Kong is a bundle of contradictions, almost as contradictory as "one country, two systems".

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. frank.ching@scmp.com. Follow him on Twitter: @FrankChing1


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Thanks to your clarifications which help focus our discussion
gods’ words, quran and bible, are subject to interpretations
adversarial common law courts need opposite arguments
the significance of the same tree varies in different forests
If FC’s statement about anti-communist democrats
being the first to welcome HK’s reunion is true,
“delicate ground” and “legless” argument must fall
Alasdair MacIntyre’s words:
“To live a life is to enact a narrative quest
that aspires to a certain unity or coherence”
That’s why we need the kidnap metaphor
to reconcile of the contradictions
The same coherent picture should also appear
if we bring FC’s high-sounding words down to earth
If you’re over in England
a nice dream emancipated from HK the ex colony
Referencing your 3rd paragraph, "delicate ground" would not have been my choice; I would have said "doesn't have a leg to stand on" in relation to the CCP ministry statement of "Hong Kong once suffered under colonial rule for a long time". 'Existed', certainly. 'Suffered'? I think in the eyes of most Hkers, hardly. Word choice aside, that's one of FC's arguments. He then proceeds to support his argument with examples of where British rule of HK was to the benefit of Hkers, and for that matter, mainlanders. To counter that argument, one would have to provide evidence of this apparently prolonged suffering.
Instead, you chose to focus on his word choice, and on "precisely", um, to be precise. You didn't argue against his argument; you argued against his vocabulary.
His second point addresses the moniker of "patriot". Again, his word-choice and use of "communist" is clumsy. He argues that you can be a Chinese patriot while having no love for the CCP. The counter-argument would have to establish why a Chinese patriot must love the CCP. FC never defines "patriotism". You mock his understanding of "patriotism" without defining exactly what you are mocking, and without offering up where you stand. BTW, posing supposedly rhetorical questions is not a facsimile for an argument.
I'm not sure of the purpose of that whole Stockholm tangent, but your metaphor/analogy falls far short of detracting from FC's argument....
...now, FC's vocabulary, word-choice, and writing style may not be your cup of tea. But this isn't English class. If his arguments are unworthy gibberish, you haven't shown them to be such, at least up to this point.
You seem like a well-read guy. FC,and any other columnist who puts his/her opinion out there, should expect to have people pass judgement on their arguments. But worrying about style and overlooking the arguments themselves is missing the forest for the trees. That's low rent stuff, and it should be beneath you.
According to Wiki:
An ad hominem is
(1) an argument against a person and not against the person’s argument
(2) an irrelevance
I have revisited my two comments you referenced and CF’s article.
My comments contained specific counter-arguments
based on which I also expressed my personal experiences and opinions.
They are relevant counter-arguments against opinions and not the person
Let’s consider FC’s comment on China’s view about HK suffering under colonial rule
“delicate ground” - what is meant by delicate ground?
what kind of person would voice opinions on “delicate ground”?
Could China, reading FC’c comment as a hypothetical person complain ad hom
despite FC’s list of his “reasons” which of course can be countered with opposites?
My principle is not to impede the forage of a family’s provider 阻人搵食
as long as the forager not to act like the estates owner
That’s partly why I’ve taken the time to clarify
what’s already adequately argued in my comments
My participation in his discussion lacks the strong feelings
that are so evident in your involvement
FC is very lucky to have a reader with your kind of loyalty
In the spirit of our ex-President Hu’s counsel - harmony
if you have any further comments
I’d be, as before, all ears
I agree with friends who reminds me from time to time
about my sometimes disagreeable style
and kindly advise moderation
I have a NS file for comments and letters written but not sent
How busy I’d be if they were sent?
How much readers have missed?
Would anyone care?
For myself?
All too ephemeral
Life is so wonderfully full of interesting things
May I just pick a neutral topic
“… who would characterize that fish proverb as a cliche,
… among those who speak English with some degree of proficiency “
I bet many who rap downside up and backside forward
in downtown Detroit would ask “What a cliché the heck fish proverb”
English indeed a lingua franca!
Broken record shouldn’t repeat FC that’s already been overplayed
If you could pick out reasonably where you find illogical and ad hom
that I haven’t explained why it means not what you misconstrue
then I may elaborate
Ad hom is intellectual poison
a must to avoid for this Confucian disciple wanna be
Absorbed by linguistics, one of my favorites
I neglected my manners for which I apologize
I must thank you for your loyal readership
“focusing capably” on every alphabet
replaying this broken record till after 2 in the morning
to analyze nuances and appreciate the ambiences
and follow up 9 in the morning
Perhaps broken record materials willingly or not
may have to enjoy your continued loyalty in coming days
for nostalgic sound bites appreciation
for your asset protection
and for all sorts of reasons
Have fun
Thank you and have a good holiday.
Sept 26, 846AM and Sept 27, 1006AM of this comment thread are, IMO, the most egregious examples where you besmirch the messenger without identifying the flaws in the message (other than the apparent fact that you disagree with said message).
The vehicle for exchange here is words. It seems reasonable to me that people be expected to use them with precision and accuracy. Also, brevity is something that is clearly underrated in some quarters.
And pslhk, since you've embarked on this journey of personal growth in an effort to avoid logical fallacies in general, and ad hominems in particular, perhaps you can extend yourself further still and share some substantive criticisms of what FC wrote here, the better to serve as a contrast to the stuff you wrote earlier. Hope that's not too much to ask.
Congratulations, pslhk. No ad hominems there. I should therefore rephrase it thus: "the logical fallacy you commit ALMOST every single time you open your mouth is called an ad hominem". And it seems you can in fact learn from your history of mistakes. Oh happy day. Keep up the good work. I think my updated statement squares with reality such that no one will be in danger of being further misled about you.
As for the word salad, I guess obfuscation is your middle name. Sure, certain things can represent different things to different people. But I suspect you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who would characterize that fish proverb as a "cliche", at least among those who speak English with some degree of proficiency. Though one can probably never say never, as I've learned, for you are quite possibly truly one of a kind. Note the avoidance of superlatives and absolutes there. I guess I really should know my audience. And I've definitely done some learning when it comes to your unique and endearing "debating" style, such as it were.
I’d be charitable on first Oct morning, so
knock and door will be open
“Proverb and cliché aren't synonyms”
just like child and man aren’t synonyms
Like many, I find Wordsworth inspiring
“a child is the father of man”
The “girl” who is your daughter could be someone’s
girlfriend or teacher or mother or …
Girl, daughter, girlfriend, teacher, mother aren’t synonyms
If only this were a forum for Wittgenstein, Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Searle, …
“No word names pain”? Need I continue to elaborate?
Check out Michael Marks and Hercules to see how
I aim’t referring to the cliché when I ask
“What’s in a name?”
With your intellectual rigor and capability to focus on the subject matter
You may copy two equations from dictionaries for proverb and cliché
Some simple verbal substitution will show that proverb = cliché
Please let me know if you find above any logical fallacy
which, if any, to me is something to learn and not to fear or evade
What no one would want to see is that some might be misled
by your illogical and factually incorrect utterance
to wrongly believe that “the logical fallacy you commit every single time
you open your mouth is called an ad hominem”
I don’t know how to “talk” with someone
who read with a microscope, preoccupied
with the edges and shades of ink drops
oblivious of the contextual significance of words and sentences
someone who braved unabashed attempts to mis-argue about semantics
without first checking explanations with Google and Wiki
We’ve exchanged our views which can't be clearer
and have become records for interested reviewers
who should find funny jokes to laugh at
Despite our obvious differences
I wish our October 1st holiday will be equally joyous
For happiness, I’d propose a toast to your funny tin foil hat
but don’t forget to check with Google and Wiki and learn
the correct uses of words like didactic, bonus point, ad hominine …
and try to understand that
your proverb can very well be my cliché
and overplayed capability to mis-focus can be called obstinacy
File closed.
"There's no "I" in team"...that's a cliche. A proverb is a proverb. Proverb and cliche aren't synonyms. If my proverbs can be your cliches, then words no longer have meaning. Granted, that seems to be your natural debating level, but for most others, it is a rather unhelpful standard.
This is the comments section for this article. Naturally, one should expect comments to bear some relevance to the article in question. Not every article is an interchangeable venue for you to climb onto your soap-box and rant about the UK, colonization, and whatever else it is you rant about. Yet your comments on various threads all sound the same. You are just as useful as a broken record.
If you want to spend your life walking around mumbling the same things over and over, regardless of the venue, situation, or context, i imagine there are websites, and more likely hospitals, that are expressly there to cater to types like you.
BTW, the logical fallacy you commit every single time you open your mouth is called an ad hominem. No idea what an ad hominine is. And yes, I do suggest you google/wiki it, on the off-chance that you are capable of learning from your history of mistakes so you don't become compelled to repeat them (is that a proverb or cliche? I'll let you slowly figure that out on your own).
"Tyler Brock"?!? Who the heck is that? Or are you now referencing fictional characters? We are discussing the column FC wrote (well, at least I am; who knows what you're doing). Is your attention deficit so severe that you cannot focus on the topic? What's with all the loose associations?
Dr. Sun went to HK to escape China, and now he's the "victim" and the Brits kidnapped him? Are you on glue?
You certainly have delusions of adequacy. It appears those delusions are ill-informed, as are you. But if you want to use metaphors, at least compose something with redeeming historical accuracy. Otherwise your "metaphors" are simply a euphemism for insanity.
Now, you seem to have some beef with FC. Whatever floats your boat. But I'm here to discuss this column. If you are capable of doing that, then come back with something. If it's going to be more of the same insanity, then please take your meds, and spare me from having you tell you that again.
People can’t use an AM radio to receive FM or digital broadcast
They must update their hardware. We work in different frequencies.
No wonder you can’t see
that HK was kidnapped such that it was a colony.
Like you, many in HK still exhibit the Stockholm syndrome
I’ve never met FC in person. My only indirect knowledge of him is from a person who only told me that they went to the same school. He might be a gentle and pleasing person but my point is never personality assessment. My comments are always on opinions and on how opinions reflect on their originators
In fact I like the house of Brock better than that of Struan
and talking fictions than repeating myself in tiresome and futile pedagogy
Indeed, I do not utilize the tin-foil hats you seem to prefer, so it's little wonder we speak at cross-purposes. That said, even ardent tin-foil users should be capable of focusing their comments on the article at hand, but this appears to be yet another skill you do not possess.
Your comments, insofar as I can tell, are always ad hominems. You dislike FC's opinions, without actually saying what about them is substantively deficient. That's fine for some, I suppose, but it doesn't lend itself to an intellectually rigorous discussion.
BTW, Stockholm syndrome refers to captives developing empathy towards their captors. This article refers to nothing of the sort. To use your convoluted and irrelevant analogy, FC is not suggesting HKers long for the Brits. If you bothered to read it, you might even slowly come to that realization. But that's probably expecting too much of you. So instead, I'm expecting more brilliant references to fictional characters. And man, if what you've been doing up until now is an attempt at teaching, then among other deficiencies, you are one god-awful teacher.
"Hong Kong once suffered under colonial rule for a long time." I wish that suffering will never end. Under the colonial rule I happened to "suffer" the knowledge of western education and still enduring the suffering of never being able to break par in golf, while my mainland cousin who never lived to have a taste of Coca Cola died during the Great Leap Forward. He would have been 61.
Louis Cha Leung-yung's first novel "The Book and the Sword" convinced me that life is more important than nationlism. In the story, the revolt leader Chan Ka-lok persuaded his half brother, the emperor Chien-lung, to join him to end the Qing Dynasty. Chien-lung said the Qing Dynasty has been feeding the nation well. He asked Chan if a revolution is worth the price of calamity and famine across the nation as has been through out the history of China. I have never thought of that dilemma until I read that book.
Patriotism is taught. Hunger is real. Those Shanghai entrepreneurs made their choice (did they have a choice?). I am glad they did.
Confession of a slow learner:
“I have never thought of that dilemma until I read that book”
Many fans finished first reading of Jin Yong’s works before high school
and second reading before university
Haven’t you moved on since (when) did you first read Jin Yong!?
“Patriotism is taught. Hunger is real”
But you know neither hunger nor patriotism
People in hunger are those who’re ignorant
about hunger’s causes and means of its elimination
People who’re smart or have rich parents will never go hunger
But the majority in every country need to be helped and taught
like you who must have missed even the first lesson, the cliché:
Teach them how to fish betters than give them fish
China has largely eliminated hunger thanks to the leadership of CCP
rebuilding the nation’s spirit from the ruins of colonialism and imperialism.
What is the foundation of British, American and Japanese patriotism?
Their leaders keep plundering and swindling overseas
to feed their nationals and enlarge their benefits
Your idea of western education is interesting - Coca Cola
I’m sure you learnt that in a great American university
which should get a license from Bloomberg to open a NY branch
"Teach them how to fish betters than give them fish"
---first of all, it's a proverb; not a cliche.
Second, if you're gonna use it, do it right:
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
BTW, kctony is not equating Coke with western education. What is the problem with your reading comprehension?
there was never a real intention to have an Universal Suffrage in the first place.. just ask Deng, err he is not ard anymore :)
Copy deleted after original's emergence
a couple of hours after posting
quite soon after the "in the system" followup!?
“It’s in the system”
That’s John Lee’s standard reply
to follow-ups on letters
that scmp has acknowledged receipt
Web comments supposedly more responsive
are not necessarily so
The website acknowledges comments posted
then keep them incommunicado
They’re certainly in the system
But which section,
The reply to 321manu I posted this morning (>hr ago) is in the system
Let’s see when or if it may eventually emerge
"censorship"? pslhk, you doth whine too much.
I sometimes bounce ideas with an avid reader
who however has limits, refusing some writers
to avoid the risk of humanoid cjd
Now I’d better keep this counsel
but for your tenacious pursuit for enlightenment
I’d do you this last favor
It all began with Tyler Brock whom FC was keen to defend
from the fact "Hong Kong once suffered under colonial rule"
by cutting the whole fact into pieces of which he begs focus on
anecdotes such as British accommodated refugees
and revolutionaries like Dr Sun
Slow thinkers need metaphors, so here is another one for you
FC dwelled on meals that a kidnapper gave a victim
but I don’t have FC’s appetite for what the kidnapper served
and would rather look at the whole picture
how the kidnapper killed and drugged for the abduction
and the consquential harms social and individual
Benevolence and malevolence are in different kinds and degrees
For Africa, Dambisa Moyo offers some interesting ideas
Didactic aptly describes my opinion on FC’s tiresome phrasal openers
If you have a better suggestion, I’m all ears
Otherwise, this is it
please don’t come back for more on FC’s unworthy gibberish
321 manu
British hypocrisy is blatant and significant
that Dr Sun was sheltered as a “troublemakers” to the Chinese government
but forbidden to practice medicine to alleviate people’s ailments
Where innate and cultural hypocrisy is part of a people’s milieu
prejudice becomes “normalized” as the way of world and life
That could be why you fail to see the relevance of British hypocrisy
looking one-sidedly at incidental or affected “benevolence”, ignoring its ulterior motives
Intelligent deficiency could also be a cause besides prejudice and hypocrisy
“I wouldn't characterize the CCP that way, but FC did”
Now which way is yours, which his and what about other ways?
“Addicted to misunderstood BIG words, FC irrelevantly asserted
“it is possible to be a Chinese patriot as well as anti-Communist”
as if everybody shares his misunderstandings about “patriot” and “communist”
I have no time for this kind of hotpot style “discussion” that's neither here nor there
FC’s didactic “it is important”, “don’t forget” and “in Beijing’s eyes”
have sufficiently widened the intellectual gulf between thinkers and utterers.
and I’d consider I’ve more than enough for you to day.
Good night.
"British hypocrisy is blatant and significant"
---well, that's certainly in the eye of the beholder. But even if true, your observation has no bearing on the author's initial observation that the Brits provided safe harbour to Dr. Sun. Their motivation for doing so makes no difference to the author's point. I've already explained this out to you.
"That could be why you fail to see the relevance of British hypocrisy looking one-sidedly at incidental or affected “benevolence”, ignoring its ulterior motives"
---actually, presence or absence of British hypocrisy had nothing to do with it. I have simply pointed out that this has no relevance to the author's initlal observation. BTW, if you think that nations/states act merely out of benevolence and with no ulterior motives, then I've got a bridge you would love to buy. You could actually begin by looking at just about anything China does in Africa, for starters. Criticizing nations simply because of the possible presence ulterior motives is for simpletons.
"Now which way is yours, which his and what about other ways?"
---my way is as I've stated. "his" way is as he stated. I'll leave you to re-read them at your leisure. As for the others, I leave that to your ample imagination.
As for your last paragraph, do you know what "didactic" means? Cuz it doesn't seem like you do.
What must be remembered, and is probably behind any Chinese govt. action, is that whatever is granted to HK in the way of 'democracy' will eventually have to be granted to the people of China as a whole. The govt. cannot be seen to permitting one part of China something which it is not prepared to grant nationwide.
So where to begin and how to progress - that is the question.
Will the answer be provided before 2017? Unlikely.
A Christian metaphor may help pandems see
FC’s absurdity about Tyler Brock’s nose and HK patriots
Matthew (7:21-) not all “Christian” go to heaven
christians who exorcise using the crucifix may join the devils they expelled
What kind of christians can enter heaven?
How in hell are christians distinguished from other hellmates?
Is Diaoyu landing a sufficient act to qualify a political activist as a patriot?
Can a government be unpatriotic and deny a patriot’s entry to the country?
Who are the patriotic Japanese, those who visit Yasukuni or those who don’t?
Patriotism is not as simplistic as FC naively presumes.
Deep in disoriented subservience, FC seems gratified
asserting that Chinese revolutionaries're safe in HK
“PRECISELY because it was under British administration”
A modicum of patriotism would’ve helped FC realize
British colonists weren’t here PRECISELY to provide Chinese safety
“Hong Kong is a bundle of contradictions” because of simpletons like FC
Addicted to misunderstood BIG words, he irrelevantly asserted
“it is possible to be a Chinese patriot as well as anti-Communist”
Is it impossible to be communist and patriotic?
If so, why were “Hong Kong's democrats the FIRST to WELCOME
the return of the British colony to Chinese SOVEREIGNTY” ?
What’s patriotism in HK if it can be both communist and anti-communist?
What’s in the name, COMMUNIST?
Is “colonial rule” better than “the communist paradise”?
FC is brainwashed
Dude, what are you talking about?
Chinese revolutionaries were safe in HK at the time precisely because of British rule, since it shielded them from Chinese tyrants of the time. THere is no requirement that the Brits were in HK exclusively to provide protection for Chinese revolutionaries. Those two statements you made in an lame attempt at an argument are total non-sequiturs.
" he irrelevantly asserted “it is possible to be a Chinese patriot as well as anti-Communist""
---if you found his assertion to be irrelevant, then it appears you've completely missed his point. Now, I wouldn't characterize the CCP as "communist" (even though it's still in the name). But one can absolutely be a Chinese patriot while being anti-CCP. Patriotism is towards a country, and CCP is not the country. Love for one definitely does not require love for the other. In fact, it is also possible for CCP-lovers to be unpatriotic - that's quite prevalent, in fact.
"Is it impossible to be communist and patriotic?"
---no, it is possible. But this does not logically disprove FC's assertion either.
"If so, why were “Hong Kong's democrats the FIRST to WELCOME the return of the British colony to Chinese SOVEREIGNTY” ?"
---for the simple fact that you can welcome Chinese national sovereignty while having no love for the CCP.
"What’s patriotism in HK if it can be both communist and anti-communist?"
---I don't think patriotism in HK is like that. You certainly haven't established it.
“British colonists weren’t here PRECISELY for Chinese safety”
aptly rejoins FC’s farcically miscarried gratification 表錯情
British colonists turned a blind eye to Asian revolutionaries
plotting and implementing uprisings in Asian countries
But they forbad Dr Sun, graduate top of the class, from medical practice
healing pains and saving lives in HK
If like you, FC “wouldn't characterize the CCP as "communist"”
His “anti Communist Chinese patriots” are anti what and why?
Marx, Lenin, and Mao can’t be any more relevant
than "the Mongoose" or Opium Pottinger
You’ve missed the metaphorical introduction of my argument
For those who have strong love-hate feelings in equal measure
on seeing Chinese athletes receiving Olympic medals,
against the rising Chinese flag and the national anthem,
unrealistic hair-splitting can only result in mental confusions
leading the way to the psychiatrist
In any case, thanks for your considered comments
"But they forbad Dr Sun, graduate top of the class, from medical practice
healing pains and saving lives in HK"
---that's neither here nor there, and has no relevance to the author's point. The Brits gave Dr. Sun (and others) safe haven. Whether Dr. Sun was then allowed to practice medicine in that safe haven has no bearing on the point in question. Just as your previous observation that the Brits weren't in HK exclusively for the purposes of providing Dr. Sun safe haven has no bearing on the fact that they nonetheless did so.
"If like you, FC “wouldn't characterize the CCP as "communist"”"
---but you can't use what I said and try to stipulate that the author would have said the same thing. I wouldn't characterize the CCP that way, but the author did. "His" "anti-communists" are, quite simply put, anti-communist. As for why, well, to each their own.
Separating China as a country from CCP as a political party is anything but "unrealistic hair-splitting"; on the contrary, failure to perceive that substantial difference bespeaks a degree of myopia that even modern laser vision correction (the medical marvel of which Dr. Sun might approve) would be powerless to correct. Sadly, as I've noted elsewhere, it is an all-too-common affliction, and one that you may have already contracted. I would suggest immediate medical attention lest it lead to further decay of higher cortical function.
It may take fifteen minutes but I've only ten therefore
I may revert to account for my remark on FC's 膚淺 & 表錯情 tomorrow
but wish that by then even without my explanation
some of you'd come to your own rcognition
How about looking at it this way: there is no contradiction, Hong Kong has always been a part of China as a civilization regardless of its political affiliation, be it Ming, Qing, communist or nationalist. Frank Ching can spin it in any way to his liking but needs to be reminded that Dr Sun Yat-sen's final resting place was in Beijing.
It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that western powers were, and still are, in Asia hankering to take political and economical advantage over a situation of which they themselves were the culprit.
Hong Kong is neither a country nor a city state like Singapore. Regardless of how Beijing and the current government of Hong Kong hammer out political reforms for the city, the citizens of Hong Kong need to understand that should there be another "三年零八個月" or similar situation in the city, they themselves and Beijing would be the only people they can count on.
would some "investigative" journalist do a piece on Basic Laws' language, if any, on universal suffrage for hongkong? this is the big elephant in the room nobody talk about...
the sun also rises
Ironically, geniune patriots like Mr.Tsang Kin-shing (Ah Ngau) was denied the entry permit to go to his mother country---the PRC for his political views and acts committed here in Hong Kong. Yet it is he and his comrades who risked to be arrested by the Japanese Coast Guard men,landed on the controversial islets in East China Sea---the Diaoyu Islets/Senkaku ! Maybe in Hong Kong, one can be considered a patriot while being anti-Communsits as Ah Ngau did/does ! Fully agree with Frank Ching said, 'it is possible to be a Chinese patriot as well as anti-Communist at the same time'! Lawmaker Wong Yuk-man once publicly said that he loved China very much except the Chinese Communsit Party and its government which is an autocratic ruling regime which oppress its people while grabbing benefits for its members (especially the senior ones and their families) !
Let me make better use of this forum
and comment on today’s Rafael H ui report
for which there isn’t a comment box.
Before that,
a 2-line remark suffices
for FC's belabored gibberish
To me, Rafael H ui is a stranger
though not exactly the kind
discussed in KA Appiah’s cosmopolitanism.
He is clearly in dire financial straits,
being sued for an alleged total of many million $.
If we were given genuine democracy over the Mark Six lottery,
I’d wonder whether he would be elected the sole winner
of an amount that would bail him out.
To me, a tradeoff would be the M6 chance of winning
the comfort of upgrading myself to first class
without the guilt of "overspending" for creature comforts.
Well this guy probably had been flying first class all the time
and that’s how he got himself into this mess.
But the real question of kindness to stranger is:
would we give up a pipe dream to save someone from real difficulties?
I understand that he was a good administrator,
effective and decisive like C LamCheng,
not a procrastinating teflon.
The corruption charge is of course an entirely different matter.

Good observations. The Central Authorities can't accept the reality that a majority of HK people were content to remain under British rule - at least the Government had talented people and the civil service did its job. Now? No talent at the top and inept senior civil servants who on the whole are mediocre paper pushers who have been promoted way above their obscene pay grades.
Great piece. All too often, people fail to recognize that being pro-HK and anti-CCP, or pro-China and anti-CCP, are perfectly legitimate and logical positions. After all, the CCP is but a political party. Problems arise because the CCP chooses to monopolize the process.


SCMP.com Account