Eddie Chu Hoi-dick’s response to English press after being disqualified from running 2019 rural ordinary election, 2 December 2018
Reporter: (on whether returning officer’s decision is reasonable, whether he is worried about his political career and whether he will take any legal actions)
Chu: Well, first of all, in my previous letter to the returning officer, I stated clearly that he does not have the right for political right based on the interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law and the judgment of election petition of Chan Ho-tin. He did not reply a single word on this particular issue. And secondly, I want to tell my fellow citizens that the problem right now, or the political censorship right now, is not only … one needs to declare not supporting HK independence, but one also needs to reject the right of other people’s freedom of speech in order to gain a right to run this rural representative election. I think this is absurd and it is in violation of the Basic Law. It also signifies a very dangerous trend of political censorship, among not only participants of election but fellow citizens. Concerning my political career, at this stage, I will continue to be a legislator to serve the Hong Kong citizens. And I will seize any chance and any role within the democratic campaign to contribute in this common cause.
This morning, some people have been mourning over the loss of Lee Cheuk-yan in the by-election, claiming it as “the fall of Hong Kong”. Meanwhile, some commentary claimed that localist opinion leaders (such as myself) have been the worst, as we advocated for a “scorched-earth”/”kamikaze voting” strategy and dissuaded voters from supporting pan-democrat candidates, resulting in the loss.
What are the facts? There are several of them. For starters, in new public housing estates such as Tak Long and Kai Ching, Lee Cheuk-yan yielded way fewer votes than Chan Hoi-yan, who was backed by CCP’s propaganda machine and election manipulation mechanism, which means that the gerrymandering done by the Liaison Office and Hong Kong Government has been effective. As pan-dems such as Lee himself welcomed Chinese immigrants with open arms and advocated for their access to public housing, the situation today is but the result of what they had previously planted, and has nothing to do with others.
Secondly, the mechanism for pan-democrats’ campaign propaganda has come to an end. On the election day, 3 newspapers voiced their support for Chan, much like what the Apple Daily would do for Lee, but due to the difference in the make-up of readers (and let’s not bother to discuss those of Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po), Apple Daily failed to operate like Oriental Daily. Oriental’s day-to-day coverage on small government handouts and vulnerable groups, as well as their mocking of university students, all appeal to the aesthetics and ideologies of HK’s blue-collar workers. Whereas to assume all blue-collar are pro-establishment would be a slippery slope, it is, however, an easy job for Oriental Daily to lead the masses into hating a self-aggrandizing and incompetent union leader. Despite the fact that Apple Daily readers are also the most vocal ones to interact on the Internet and can hardly be manipulated by media, Apple Daily wouldn’t stop rooting for unpresentable candidates. No matter how decent they seem at first, Apple’s Choices either slowly fade into oblivion, like Joshua Wong, or are simply an embarrassment to start with, such as Alvin Yeung. To put forward candidates like such almost amounts to announcing the death of the campaign in the entire election. Some pan-dems, such as Longhair Leung, even went to the depth as to provoke and taunt undecided voters. Such electoral suicide reflects pan-dems’ complacency and refusal to learn.
Thirdly, these politicians are unbearably annoying to start with to the point they almost call for a beating. Both Lee and Frederick Fung were sellouts to HK people on various political issues, and they fail to manifest any passion and dedication in their day-to-day community service. These numerous notorious incidents have been deeply embedded in our memories. As the colloquial term say it, the reason why we “vote with tearing eyes” is because even their usual supporters find them simply unpalatable. If a political sector who needs to run for campaigns have run out of choices but old useless candidates, then it’s simply announcing its doom and demise, especially during the times where the youth struggle to find a place and are at odds with useless old bums. As they approach retirement age, instead of competing with youngsters and embarrassing themselves, how about being supportive to youth and taking up mentoring roles?
Lastly, if one seeks help, one should remain humble, especially for politicians, whose role is but to appeal to the masses. They need to stop bickering with voters; otherwise they might end up seeking employment service themselves.
Mike Pence, Vice President of the US, Source of photo: Internet
Mike Pence, the Vice-President of the United States, delivered a stinging speech about China at the prestigious Hudson Institute, with every paragraph pinpointing at every flaw of China. Starting off by retelling the story where the US has supported China for the last century, the speech depicts China’s betrayal amidst and despite the US’ benevolence; as the speech unfolds, it sounds as if the US is giving an ultimatum to China before launching a full-out attack. This U-turn of policy bears a striking resemblance to what was laid down in Michael Pillsbury’s book:The Hundred-Year Marathon.
What's more unsettling is that, whereas Pence's speech did mention many countries, Hong Kong (HK) was completely left out of it. While it is true that US-HK Policy Act still remains in effect, such is no guarantee of peace during turbulent times like these. Today, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) is facing political oppression from the HKSAR government, as Financial Times journalist and FCC Vice President Victor Mallet’s working visa has been rejected, as a payback for hosting a talk by Andy Chan, Chairman of the Hong Kong National Party (HKNP). The act of terminating of Mallet’s visa amounts to sending him in exile. The HKSAR Government, by its conduct, revealed the fact that Hong Kong is no longer a free port nor an international metropolis, but instead “another Chinese city”. China has been in breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law for a long time, and such conduct has been understood by the US. Sooner or later, if not already the case, HK will be seen as an accomplice of China, and there would be no way we can stay out of it once the US decides it’s payback time.
Just a month ago, HKNP wrote to President Trump, claiming that HK had suffered a total loss of its autonomy, thus asking the US to review US-HK Policy Act, as well as to revoke HK and China’s respective WTO memberships. Back then, quite a lot of criticisms came from the political and business sectors, saying that this would send HK to its demise. On the other hand, Alan Leong, a senior member of the pan-democrats, issued a high-profile rebuttal through Apple Daily, stating his disagreement over the claim that HK has suffered a total loss of autonomy, and claimed that HKers should “persuade” the Chinese Communist Party to act according to Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law…
As we can never tell whether Leong's seeming naïveté was genuine, there is little need to comment such an act. Given, however, that the pan-democrats have occupied so many seats in the LegCo, Victor Mallet’s incident is in turn a reflection for what they have achieved so far amidst such political reality: ZERO.
Let us look deeper into it. The US’ grievance over China stems from China’s intellectual property theft and breach of trade regulations. While taking advantage of international trade, China maintains its shady connections with enemies of the international community, such as Iran and North Korea, and HK has played an pivotal role as an intermediary. The reason why HK can intermediate between the West and these shady links is not that HK is particularly brilliant, but because of the differential treatment it receives from the international community and, in other words, their belief in the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine.
The international community has now realized that their tolerance is the root cause for HK’s infiltration of the international trade order, and so it’s not hard to imagine how HK will be treated by the international community in the near future. For example, as China has instilled a credit system to spy on and control their citizens, they would need to import spy cameras, for which HK is the transport hub. When the West has imposed an embargo on sensitive materials to China due to the outbreak of human rights crisis in regions like Xinjiang, there is no way Hong Kong can stay out of the embargo list. In another example, having breached trade regulations by doing business with Iran, ZTE had to accept direct management by the US to avoid going bust altogether. We will see HK receiving similar punishment very soon.
Void as it might seem, human rights remain a powerful pretext for certain actions. In 2017, German firearm manufacturer Heckler & Koch suddenly refused to sell MP5 submachine guns to the HK Police Force, as the German government had made a requirement in 2015 that all firearm manufacturers must assess the buyer’s level of corruption and democracy before selling, due to the worries that these firearms would be used by dictatorships to oppress their people.
Another less obvious reason for this is that the West is worried about leakage of sensitive and strategic materials, such as weapons, as well as steppers that are used to manufacture CPUs, into countries like Iran or China, through the help of intermediaries. An experienced intermediary, it is no wonder that HK is becoming less and less popular amongst the international community.
How did the HKers respond to this, then? Elites like Alan Leong would never stop preaching the same old drivel, claiming that the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine remains intact, and that HKers stand the same common ground of democracy, freedom and human rights with the free world, and therefore the differential treatment ought to continue. Nice as they might seem, foreign politicians, of course, have their own agendas. Whereas democracy and freedom are but an empty promise, conflict of interest is the real deal. As HK moves from a free city to an accomplice to China’s dirty work, the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine stops being the glory of the world, but a backdoor to the political and economic order of the world.
As a backdoor is a gateway through which a system is invaded, how would any knowing computer engineer not try to block it?
All these years, the politicians who tried to lobby in the US put all their emphasis on the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine. From a Western perspective, isn’t this some sort of circus act all these years? On one hand, the West knows HK has become China’s handyman and is doing damage to the world order; whereas on the other, they keep hearing these blokes from HK emphasizing on how high-degree autonomy they enjoy and how the One-Country-Two-Systems promise remains intact. “Is this a joke?”
Technically and factually speaking, HK IS China’s handyman. If HKers want the free world to help maintain the One-Country-Two-System promise on one hand, AND want to keep the differential treatment such as low tariffs and qualification recognition on the other, how would that be different from asking the free world to grab a knife and stab themselves? In fact, the more HKers emphasize on the existence of the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine, and the less HKers are willing to admit the fact that it has been defeated and that it has surrendered, the more would HK register as a sleeper cell on the radar of the international community.
To maintain the willful belief that the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine as the common ground between HKers and the international community, mainstream HKers have refused to look at the reality and, essentially, have been living a lie for all these years. The only concern for the West is this: Aren’t you guys all involved in hacking the order of international trade? You took all the privileges given to you by the international community, hacked into the system as a handyman, THEN came back to us, demanding we tolerate you despite all the damages you’ve done, AND continue giving you the differential treatment as well?
It is self-centred for the HKers to only want their business and professional services (also businesses) to continue to foster. From a foreign perspective, as China and HK have successfully merged as a whole, the denying of the merge and demanding of differential treatment means HKers only want to enjoy all the rights without fulfilling any obligations. Just like China.
What do we have to do in the face of such a hostile environment outside? For starters we need “civil diplomats”. Opinion leaders need to stop living in denial, and need to plead the truth to the international community, that HK has completely fallen and its autonomy has suffered a total loss; that HKers, however, like the international community, are victims of the One-Country-Two-Systems lie as well as the Chinese tyranny; and that all the damages done to the international community had been done by China, hijacking the name of HK. We HKers need to free ourselves and cast off the yoke of bondage known as the game of elections, and stop telling foreigners all we wanted was the status quo. Embracing the status quo means HK WILL be punished alongside China.
HKers need to sever the ties with China as soon as possible, whereby we at least need another way of civil diplomacy, to tell the international community and our allies our true opinion: HKers do NOT wish to be an accomplice for China’s attempt to dominate the world, which is why HKers ardently seek true autonomy through independence. This is not only to benefit HKers themselves. It is only when HKers obtain true autonomy and set boundaries can HK stop being the threat to the international order.
HKer’s primary perception of the world is that freedom and democracy have to be mentioned hand-in-hand with the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine. At the end of the day, HKers didn’t want to offend China and would like to remain as China’s handyman on one hand, meanwhile also wanting to remain as an ally of the West on the other. The fact that China took an action against a foreign journalist means that it has used HK as a pawn. The colonial master known as China has decided to sacrifice HK, and HK, as a subordinate, never had a chance to make a difference even if it chooses to side with its master. As we refused to choose whether to jump off the sinking ship or to remain on board, we’d still have to face the fact that the ship IS going to sink anyway.
The problem for HK is not that it doesn’t want to side with the West; it’s that it doesn’t get the opportunity to do so. As Pence made his speech, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen immediately thanked the US for having the “moral courage” to speak up for Taiwan. Ties between US and Taiwan has been increasingly close these years, and an “Abandon-HK-Keep-Taiwan” policy has almost reached a consensus.
It is virtually impossible for HK to safeguard its own interest and values with its own existing system, and with the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine, it renders it virtually impossible to seek help from foreign allies as well. To respect the One-Country-Two-Systems doctrine is to let China do whatever they like, and HK is doomed to be the backdoor China uses to hack the rest of the world.
5 months before, Alan Leong discussed HK politics at Asia Society, and all of a sudden he started to defend China (footage starting at 13:54), claiming that if the US had believed China to be in breach of the trade protocols, they should seek to resolve their differences within the framework of WTO, and they shouldn’t expect China to play by the rules if US had started a trade war, because by doing so would make China steer further away from democratic values. To Americans, this act is but defending this rogue regime. Didn’t you want democracy and autonomy for starters?
Fast forward to 5 months later. Pence made a stinging speech about all the crimes China had committed against the US and the world as a whole, including, on a domestic level, suppressing human rights and freedom of speech, and on an international level, influencing American elections, stealing confidential information from American companies, forced technology transfer, using “debt-trap diplomacy” against Belt-and-Road countries, and militarizing the South China Sea, to name a few. NONE of these conflicts can be resolved within the WTO framework, and as the US has made clear that they do not intend to do so, as they are seeking to establish multi-lateral trade relations anew.
Pence’s speech has rendered Leong’s defense a joke, as it has shown the extent how HK politics has lost touch with reality.
In his speech, Pence did mention Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, North and South Korea, South China Sea, as well as countries in the Belt and Road Initiative, leaving HK behind. Obviously, it is because HK has been so pro-China for such a long time that it stops showing up on the radar of the international community. Starting from Martin Lee fighting for the US to treat China as a most favoured nation after the Tiananmen massacre, to Alan Leong’s defense for China at Asia Society, HK politics has remained as pedantic as ever.
Whereas we never expected anything radical to come out of these politicians in fancy suits whose main concern is getting elected; had they stayed distant from China and treated them like an adversary (even if it was just a pretense), it would have made a huge difference in perception. Few people could tell the difference between defending HK and defending China. When they beg the US for their mercy to spare HK in the trade war, while ALSO saying good things about China at the same time, isn’t this revealing of their true desire to remain as a two-faced handyman, but with different wordings?
Then, if the international community forgets about HK, how would this be China’s responsibility at all? It is this entire generation of HKers who couldn’t make sense of their own identity and position or, worse yet, deliberate two-faced free-riders that exemplify the old saying “those who insult themselves shall be insulted likewise”. As we enter a time of a black-and-white, all-or-nothing showdown between China and the US, being two-faced means getting slapped in both.
The astronomical fiscal reserve of the SAR government has done little to solve our social problems. As bad as that may be, it is merely a reflection of the perversion that is our political system. Yet if this humongous sum of taxpayers’ money were to be handed over to the state-owned enterprises, unexplained and unchecked, that would assail our tradition of insulating SAR’s finances from the Mainland government, further ruining Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.
Financial Secretary Paul Chan recently revealed in a blog that the HKMA is talking to Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on investing in their overseas projects that yields stable returns as stockholders with part of Hong Kong’s trillion dollar fiscal reserves.
Ay, there’s the rub: Is such investment profitable? SOEs have a monopoly in their domestic market, and hence is fairly sheltered from failure. Investing in their shares when they come are justifiable if the price is right and the purchase well communicated. Yet what is proposed is significantly different: we only know that the investment will be into SOEs’ overseas projects, with no idea of what it entails. We do not even know which SOEs are involved, or the projects in question.
To be frank, profitable projects have no difficulty seeking capital investment. Risky projects would naturally yearn for SAR’s investment, yet should we really let patriotism cloud business acumen?
The next problem lies in the means of investment. The SAR Government is hoping to buy stock and wait for dividends. Unlike the Government’s current investment purchases, such as shares, foreign currency and bonds, which are all highly fungible. But for the Government to hold stock of a specific company is much riskier, and the stockholders’ rights is completely at the mercy of the company’s constitution, organization, and legal systems. In such cases, there is no guarantee of great dividends even if the company were to make great profits.
The third problem lies in the nature of such investment. SOEs are hefty investors abroad; so of their projects are controversial, to say the least, involving the sales of arms or copyright infringements. Even if these projects were to yield great profits, the SAR government should still keep the moral dimension in mind. Not to mention, with the US-China trade war going on, the SAR Government ought to stay out of it and refrain from all commercial activities the US see as unfair trade practices; it might be even wiser to keep one’s distance from SOEs, so as to protect our status as a customs-free area.
Perhaps to the FS, it is within the HKMA’s own purview to manage its own investment portfolio. HKMA may choose SOEs as it chooses stocks and bonds. These actions are unworthy of a detailed account on the FS’ blog. Yet the three questions I have raised above are of great importance. Mishandling our investment and we suffer losses, or worse, find ourselves caught in the crossfire of the current trade war. With this in mind, how can the SAR’s clandestine practices bring assurance to anyone?
Of course, the bigger question lies in our fiscal reserve trickling into the hands of Mainland SOEs. What’s to follow? handing our reserve to the government or Guangdong or even the national development bank for them to manage like Macau did? With the decision-making process hidden from view, Hongkongers have no way of knowing where our fiscal reserve and the HKMA’s profit is spent. We may even end up with the Central Government taking over Hong Kong’s reserve, only to provide the SAR with an annual return of 4%.
Now, of course, these worse case scenarios still require the consent of HKMA and the SAR Government, but since when was the last time the SAR Government ever said no to Beijing?
My wife and I were deeply touched by the warm and friendly welcome which we received on our arrival this afternoon and which we are now receiving from those of you present in the King’s Theatre.
We come, as has been said in the address of welcome, not as strangers to Hong Kong; it is in fact to us our second home. We were married here. We have spent more than half our married life, more than half our working years in this Colony. We have a number of friends of [illegible], and it was indeed very pleasant to see so many well-known faces on Queen’s [illegible] this afternoon. I also have doubt that amongst this audience before me there are many others whom I count as amongst my friends and who I hope count me as their friend.
Nevertheless, though it is not as a stranger that I come to Hong Kong, I realise full well that the Hong Kong of 1947 is a very different place from the Hong Kong that I left in 1935. There are many more problems, and these problems are much more difficult and much more intricate.
We, however, are not unique in this. There is no country in the world today that does not have its problems somewhat similar to ours, to a greater or a lesser extent. The question of shortages for instance, food — that most important and fundamental of all things; shortages of rice, shortages of wheat, shortages of sugar, shortages of meat. Materials, shortages of timber, of steel, of cement. Shortages of manpower — engineers, doctors, teachers, technicians and shortages of money.
Now these shortages that I have mentioned affect everything, not least housing. During the last few months, I have visited a number of countries and in all of them housing was a great problem. Some of the smaller communities in the South Pacific, in Australia, in New Zealand, in India, in Canada, in the United States, – yes, even the United States, – and the United Kingdom, housing was the tremendous problem.
Then again education is affected: lack of teachers, not enough schools. Health is affected. Communications are affected. Where is the stuff to design these airports; the materials to construct them, and the money to pay for them? The cost of living two, the tremendous increase in the cost of living, comes directly out of the shortages.
The world also suffers from a great deal of political unrest. Fortunately, in that regard, Hong Kong is free and as has just been said in the address of welcome to me, Hong Kong is about to take a great step forward on the democratic path by the establishment of a Municipality, and also, and this is sometimes overlooked, another very important step — the creation of an Unofficial majority in the Legislative Council.
No is maybe said that I have rather stressed the difficulties before us. I have not done that with the object of giving myself an excuse for throwing up my hands in despair and saying, "the task is too big, I just can't do anything about it.” On the contrary, I reckon, as I know you do too, as a challenge for the utmost exercise of one’s ingenuity for the utmost effort in putting forth one’s strength, both mental and physical.
At the same time, I think it is a good thing that we should realise that there are other parts of the world that have their problems as well as we have. Nevertheless, so we should regard of problems in their proper world setting, it is in our own house that we have got to put in order. It is no good trying to solve other people's problems – that is quite beyond our strength. We must concentrate on our problems and we must help ourselves. By doing that we shall of course relieve to some extent the United Kingdom from the burden that she bears. Also, in helping ourselves, we should work in the friendliest and closest cooperation with all my dear friend and neighbour, China.
The recovery to date of Hong Kong has been remarkable. I have heard it commented on very favourably in a number of countries, by people that have had the opportunity of passing through Hong Kong and seeing what has been done. I think that reflects the greatest credit on my predecessor, Sir Mark Young. And all the people in this Colony.
This afternoon I do not propose to go into the details of the various tasks ahead of me. I want to study them on the spot, but I assure you that I shall not hold anything up and delay matters. Nor do I propose to list all the problems that we have to tackle. There is, however, one matter on which I feel I must comment, and that is the University. I regarded as a matter of the greatest importance that the University should become a first class institution, a beacon of enlightenment and culture in this part of the world.
You, Mr Morse, and Mr Chau, and ladies and gentlemen, have offered me your cooperation during my tenure of office. I gladly accept that offer. Without your help I can do nothing. So my concluding words or, "let's go forward together to make a shining example of Hong Kong by showing what work and cooperation can achieve.”
ACCEPTANCE SPEECH BY H.E. THE GOVERNOR, SIR EDWARD YOUDE, KCMG, MBE, AT THE SWEARING-IN CEREMONY IN THE CITY HALL ON MAY 20, 1982
Sir Philip, Sir Sze-yuen, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am very grateful for your kind words and for the warm welcome which has been extended to us. I have just taken the Oaths of Office as Governor and Commander-in-chief. I am proud and honoured to have been appointed to this position. I recognise the heavy responsibility for the good government and well-being of the people of Hong Kong which this office bears and I pledge that I will do my utmost to fulfil it.
Hong Kong has much of which it can be proud. In a highly competitive world the enterprise of its manufacturers and businessmen and the skills and application of its workforce have brought it prosperity and success. This, in turn, has provided the means for remarkable achievements in housing a rapidly increasing population, in the spread of education, the improvement of medical and social services, better recreational and cultural facilities, and impressive transport works. With the expansion of the Legislative Council and creation of the elected element in the District Boards the channels for the expression of the wishes of the people who live here have been widened. From a modest port Hong Kong has grown into a large and modern city ranking with the other great cities of the world. I pay tribute to all those who have worked to achieve this transformation, and particular tribute to my predecessor whose outstanding contribution has been so widely recognised.
Hong Kong has indeed come a long way since I first saw it more than thirty years ago. But there will remain much to be done. In this changing world no society can or should stand still. I come at a time when many important programmes are in progress on which people count for improvement in all that can make Hong Kong desirable as a place in which to work and bring up a family, and a city to be proud of. It will be my constant endeavour to advance these programmes. To support them there will need to be sustained economic growth and an environment in which the drive and enterprise of all those who contribute to that growth can be given full scope.
For this to be achieved Hong Kong will need confidence in its future. It is not surprising, given the circumstances of the lease that this issue should be now be raised. I believe that there are sound grounds for confidence and that the omens are good. The commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to Hong Kong and the interests of its people remains firm. The relationship with the People’s Republic of China on which so much depends has never been more cordial. If there is an issue to be addressed, there is also in addressing it, a common recognition of the vital importance of the continued prosperity and stability of this Territory and a common wish to preserve them. In consequence, I see good reason why confidence should remain high.
The world is going through a difficult economic period and the going may be tough but Hong Kong has shown that it can survive and prosper in hard as well as easy times. In this enterprise, the Government must also play its part in partnership with the private sector.
In all this, I know how much I will need the advice of the Executive Council and the support of the Legislative Council and I thank Sir Sze-yuen for his promised support of Unofficial Members. The Government will depend too on the vital roles of the Urban Council, the District Boards and the many advisory boards who contribute so much to make Government effective and responsive to the interests of the people of Hong Kong. I look forward to working with all the elements of the public service, of whose high quality I am aware and I thank Sir Philip for his expression of their support.
As Governor, it will fall to me, with your support and guidance, to lead the many-sided efforts of your Government. I pledge again that I will do all I can to contribute to their success, to the welfare and prosperity of the people of Hong Kong and to making the future of this Territory a bright one.
Following is the speech delivered by the Governor, Sir Murray MacLehose, at the Inaugural Ceremony at City Hall on November 19, 1971:
I am most grateful for the general remarks of Sir Hugh, Sir Albert and Sir Cho-yiu. Your remarks and the reception we have received since we landed have deeply touched my wife and myself. It is indeed wonderful to come home to Hong Kong again after all these years.
I am proud to have been appointed to the governorship of this colony. It has been impressed on me in my travels how well-known and respected Hong Kong is throughout the world for its success, and for the happy example which it presents of multi-racial operations.
I realize the weight of responsibility for its well-being that now devolves on me. I am profoundly conscious of how well my friend and predecessors, Sir David Trench, bore his responsibility; and on taking up this office. I would like to pay tribute to the determination with which he upheld the interests of the Colony.
Though I have visited Hong Kong at fairly regular intervals, I have not lived here since 1962. I have no illusions that Hong Kong to which I now return is the same as that I used to know. The statisticians have explained, for example, that since then economic activity has trebled, consumption of electricity has trebled, and bank deposits have quadrupled.
As I crossed the harbour today, I could see for myself that factories and great buildings have multiplied. It has always been a Colony which has earned admiration for the success, courage and ingenuity with which it has faced and overcome great problems.
Now it has taken its place as one of the great cities in the world, a manufacturing and trading centre of very considerable international significance, a growth area which is without parallel, a port and communications and tourists centre of importance — one could continue the list indefinitely.
My first task will be to do all I can to ensure that this growth and expansion continue. Economic prosperity provides the only foundation on which all our hopes for the future can be built.
In the past few weeks, there have been worrying signs that protectionism, especially in our main market, has re-emerged in the world and threatens our prosperity and that of many others. It is my fervent hope that this phase will prove temporary, and that the world will return to comparatively liberal trading conditions. It is such conditions which have fostered the extraordinary rapid growth of economic activity in the world in the last 25 years.
It is in the highest interest of Hong Kong, indeed it is in the highest interest of the world, that they should be maintained.
As Hong Kong has become more prosperous, it has been possible to look beyond the bare necessities of existence and devote more resources to improving conditions of life. Great strides have been made. I look forward to hearing more about these developments and the policies behind them, particularly those concerning housing, medical services, social welfare and education including, of course, technical education, and how they and other policies to be developed can show increased benefits to the people of the Colony in the next few years.
Our object is prosperity with social progress. I am very conscious of the fact that this can only be based on the confidence generated by sound administration, political stability and, above all, law and order. I have heard of concern about recent trends in the observance of law and order. Here again, I look forward to hearing what policies are planned to bring about an improvement.
I fully realize that in Hong Kong this problem is as complex as it is in most other great cities, and that solutions are not easy. Certainly in finding them the active cooperation of all responsible people is vital.
I arrive at a period of rapid change in the world, and, in particular, in the Pacific area. Hong Kong can only benefit from the new situation. Its main characteristic is recognition of the facts of international life and this should encourage calmer and more productive relations in the area.
I am confident that Hong Kong will continue to flourish and grow in this new climate, to find new outlets and new profit for the skill and ingenuity of the people, and to improve the conditions of their life. One day let them more nearly match the beauty of the sea and mountains that surround us.
It will be my purpose not only to maintain our present level of development but also to encourage both Government and the community to further progress so that the people of Hong Kong will find it an even better place to live in.
This, ladies and gentlemen, will be my object in the years ahead.
Letter from David Ford to Civil Servants of Hong Kong on 16 June 1989 布政司霍德1989年6月16日致全體公務員的信
Translated by Chinese Language Authority, Civil Service Branch, written by David Ford 霍德撰寫、銓敍科中文公事管理局譯
(In June 2018, a Facebook page Rufixation posted this letter, which was found in a former government department office. With authorization, we have typed the full text in English and Chinese for people to refer upon in the future.)
（2018年6月，Facebook專頁荒凝止息張貼這封在前政府部門辦公室找到的信件。經授權，我們將英文及中譯本打出，以供日後有需要人士參考引錄。）
Dear Colleague,
At this time, we in the civil service share with the community as a whole a profound feeling of shock and grief at the recent bloodshed in Peking. I am sure that you, like most people in Hong Kong, are watching with the concern the way in which the situation in China develops. We must all hope that the moves to modernize and liberalize China will be given fresh impetus in the years ahead.
Despite their anger the people of Hong Kong have reacted to recent events in China with tremendous dignity and restraint. This is particularly so in the case of the civil service and my purpose in writing to you is to thank you all for your dedication and responsibility in these troubled times. You have continued to provide the community with a standard of service of a level of which you can be proud, while at the same time demonstrating solidarity with the rest of the people of Hong Kong. Your loyalty to Hong Kong and all it stands for is highly appreciated.
The tragedy of recent weeks makes the role of the civil service even more important to the future of Hong Kong. There may be difficult times ahead, but we have faced difficult times before. No matter what the problems, Hong Kong has shown an ability to adapt and bounce back unequalled anywhere. I have no doubt that we shall do so again.
It would be pointless to suggest that what has happened has not had a major effect on confidence in the future of Hong Kong. I know that you must be deeply concerned. But this makes it all the more necessary for us, as civil servants, to work towards ensuring a stable, and prosperous Hong Kong both up to and beyond 1997. One thing that has emerged from this present situation is a unity of purpose in Hong Kong. We cannot go back, we can only go forward, plan ahead and build for the future. In going forward our duty and commitment is to Hong Kong and its people.
I realise of course that in difficult times it is the civil service that is in the front line, that it is that civil service who may bear the brunt of the community's concerns, and that it is the civil service to which many people time for leadership, guidance and help. I have set that confidence in the future of Hong Kong has been seriously affected; what has not been affected is the confidence in the civil service; its sense of duty and dedication and its commitment to serve the people of Hong Kong.
The student unions of eight universities told the press that they won’t organize any Tian’anmen-related events. Many “yellow ribbons” were angry.
I don’t know what do undergraduates think about this. A few years ago, I started to urge people to boycott the rally held by HK Alliance and to sever ties with patriotism. But that doesn’t mean that I completely know what they are thinking about because I haven’t talked to any SU members. I am already not as young as they are. With loads of criticisms against the youth, old “yellow ribbons” see them as “revolters” as the youth does not follow the old’s “traditions and values”.
What kind of emotions do these old people expect post-1989 youth to have? If such a youth says he will commemorate the Massacre forever, that would be most hypocritical, isn’t it? “If I support democracy and freedom, I should bear in mind the Massacre for 10,000 years” - this is the political correctness passed on by “HKA-HKPTU-DP” (HK Alliance, Professional Teachers’ Union, Democratic Party). My generation doesn’t really give a damn, not to mention the latest generation. Admit it, things will change. You will eventually be surrounded by a generation who haven’t experienced the Massacre.
But if you think that the next generation will completely forget that, then that is showing your arrogance. This generation has experienced their own confrontations and has desires for dignity and liberty. Localists, independence supporters, self-determination supporters have arisen in an environment way more difficult compared to the era when the British ruled. These people have paid a higher cost than the older generation. Being charged, getting bankrupt, in exile, being imprisoned, being ridiculed, etc.
I don’t think that these “yellow ribbons” do care about democracy and freedom of Hong Kong. They care about the Massacre’s façade more than the succession of democratic awareness. They do not accept that the world will be taken over by a generation which has not experienced the Massacre. They do not stress the desire for freedom, which all human beings share, nor respect the differences between the young. They keep reiterating their limited participation - I watched the massacre live on TV, I went to Concert for Democracy in China, I went to protests…
Emotional experience was special, huge but uncopyable. If you haven’t experienced it, you haven’t. But this generation will remember 28 September 2014, Occupy Movement, Mong Kok unrest and names in these episodes. The older generation won’t care how to make this generation (which has a totally different emotional experience) feel what they felt back then. Do the older generation care about the democracy and freedom of Hong Kong? Do they think that they have done a good job in the past three decades? Do they believe that things will not be taken over by the younger generation?
They seem to care more about staying inside their echo chamber for the rest of their life, including murmuring “students are but cat’s paws“. These students can face Hong Kong upright. Democratic Party has fought for a retrogressive political reform and had private backroom deals with the Communists. Leung Yiu-chung, one of the standing members of the HK Alliance, surrendered the chairman seat in LegCo, leading to six lawmakers being disqualified. Every time, there were people missing when key bills in the Chamber are to be voted. Tightening of the Rules of Procedures, XRL, co-location, infrastructure appropriations were all passed. Don’t you care? “Standing one night on the stage in a year makes a person upright, having clear-cut protagonists and antagonists …” Doesn’t that sound TVB dramas?
The older generation cares the most such annual party. They do not care about how many battles were lost in the reality. As long as they “win” in the night in such virtual rally, they are satisfied. They will then point the finger at protesters as spies from the Party and making riots. Those who have decades of remaining life won’t bear these.
For those “yellow ribbons”, they probably can’t imagine why is this unbearable. With those mean comments, you might think nothing happened over the past few years or even decade. They have loose standards for the authority but strict to the weak. They might think that their own contribution is comparable to building temples and beneficial to the public.
In the past two or three years, students have bid China farewell, but still, see the Massacre as a “humanitarian disaster” and had a few forums, trying to localize the commemoration of the Massacre. Yet, people who are not going to Victoria Park are slammed. Those “yellow ribbons“ had loads of antagonistic articles and words against the students, who did not have an equal amount of article exposure and airtime. If this is an election, this is equal to “scolding at your supporters”. Those who scold so loudly have their dreams come true. The students don’t think it is necessary to organize such event. Things should be said have been said.
If we say forcing people to love their country is a tyranny, then HK Alliance forcing the latest generation to have “Massacre emotional experience” is equally “Chinese”. There is metal fatigue, and a long-term emotional blackmail also generates antibody in people’s mind.
The right mentality is simple: those who want to go can go, and those who don’t are not sinners. People can still collaborate on different matters after that night. “Yellow ribbons” can tolerate Alvin Yeung, who was absent for many key meetings in LegCo, and Leung Yiu-chung, who surrendered the chairmanship, yet they just can’t tolerate undergraduates who have different mindsets when it comes to identity and “Massacre emotional experience”.
“Undergraduates ought to cry for the Massacre” - this is just the imagination of one generation. No one will be on the stage forever, not me, not you and not that incident.
During the by-election, we all thought the “Disqualification Issue” is the trump card. As we can now learn from the facts, the “Disqualification Issue” may only be a concern for the self-anointed progressives. For many people, the alleged “Disqualification Issue” is no grave matter.
If we were to ask why the “Disqualification Issue” failed the mobilise the masses, I would allude to the movie NO, a film adapted from the history of Chile's referendum. In the movie, the dictator Pinochet orchestrated a referendum to extend his rule. The opposition needs to call on the electorate to vote NO. They set out the film TV commercials, with scenes of hardcore riot police beating up citizens, ending with a call to vote against.
The opposition presented their work to a young advertiser, who finds it ineffective. The advertiser said that such serious theme has little appeal to the masses. He noted that a message needs to be targeted to the public as a product is targeted to its market.
The public we refer to is essential an apolitical bunch. They need to make ends meet, have a family to take care of, have classes to attend, lives to live… Force-feeding them with political ideals will not be able to affect them; the message itself must be approachable.
Professor Ma Ngok noted that the gravest takeaway from this by-election is that the ordinary citizen is not as receptive to the “Disqualification Issue” as we all expected.
Those who are repulsed by the “Disqualification Issue” pay close attention to political news everyday, like you and I. We can tell the difference between localists, "yit-po-shing" (Civic Passion-Proletariat Political Institute-Hong Kong Resurgence Order), moderate pan-dems, radical pan-dems, left-wingers, right-wingers… etc. There may be one or two hundred thousands of us in society. Yet most of the Hongkongers we meet on a daily basis cannot tell Youngspiration, League of Social Democrats or Demosistō apart.
A lot of youth who regard themselves as woke would curse these “Kongformists” as undeserving of democracy. The “Kongformists” are those who pay little attention to politics, and even those who have been subconsciously persuaded by TVB and pro-Beijing newspapers to believe that politics is chaos.
The aforementioned crowd makes up the majority of society. That is the reality. They are exactly the people whom the advertiser in the movie NO is trying to mobilise. The opposition cannot regard them as “Chilean conformists” and give up trying to sway them, only to bemoan there are too many “Chilean conformists” in Chile for democracy to happen.
For you and me, the “Disqualification Issue” is an egregious assault on the law, due process, reason and common sense. Yet most people cannot even find time to care, or simply don’t want to care. Especially when television and newspapers nowadays are all under the enemy’s command, giving them even less incentive to care.
This year or so, the government stripped many candidates’ rights to run for office unreasonably. It has also stripped six LegCo members of their seats. Why is the daily passerby so nonchalant to such ridiculous and barbaric acts?
From daily observation, I see that regardless of adults or students, they have come to roll the word “DQ” on the tip of their tongue, as if it is nothing out of the ordinary. I think there are a number of reasons why this has occurred:
First, the mainstream media have all been homogenised. Mainstream media, especially TVB, have basically given a cold shoulder to the issues of government stripping candidates’ right to run as well as elected candidates’ right to represent. Even when there is coverage, it is stuck with the formulaic expression of “They have been too radical. The government is acting in accordance with the law. Pro-establishment scholar points out it is within the government’s right to do so.”
On another matter, the expression “disqualification” is a complete disaster. What is happening is candidates’ rights to run and elected candidates’ rights to represent being stripped away, yet you let the mainstream media lead you on and call it “DQ”. The average Joe hears two English letters and does not associate it with anything negative. This blurs the severity of the incident. Disqualification to the ordinary citizen is like a referee stripping a rule-breaker’s right to play, most commonly seen in sports competition. Anti-DQ to the innocent ears sound like we are in the wrong to begin with.
There’s a more serious point: Yau Wai-ching’s “Re-fucking of Chi-Na” have been looped ad nauseam by the mainstream media, so much so that the public has come to equate DQ with “Re-fucking of Chi-Na”. You who are politically attuned will know even using that as an excuse to strip a legislator of her seat is out of line, but the commoner sentences the legislator to death the moment they hear a swear word.
An election is about rallying people to vote. For many people to be rallied, it takes more than an appeal to ideals. There needs to be an appeal to emotion and relations. An appeal to emotions is to make the public feel the need to vote. This needs to go beyond ideals. They must have an emotional motive, such as grief, anger, fear, hope, sympathy… etc. To be stripped of the right to be elected and to represent is a grief-worthy and angering issue in itself, yet the incident is too abstract in reality, coupled with the aforementioned reasons, it failed to rally the people.
So how can the masses be rallied? Whatever I can think of, I am sure my democrat friends can also think of. Here are my two cents:
First of all, it is important to capture the attention of those who do not care about the “Disqualification Issue”. How? Since the television and newspapers are all under the regime’s control, we must sow our seeds humbly on the streets and promote in local communities. This seed-sowing process demands time and patience and requires our constant commitment. As to whether the democrats had spent enough time and patience on that, I’d say there is room for improvement.
This seed-sowing approach is no panacea. There are those who are immune to such medicine. The “Disqualification Issue” failed to capture the imagination. How can such imagination be presented? Take the anti-national education movement for example. If it weren’t for the overwhelmingly leftist “The China Model” textbook, the public would not be aware how chilling the whole thing is. Yet when it comes to the government stripping of legislators of their seats, there wasn’t enough grief, fear and frustration. Better for Hong Kong Island, there were a bunch of commies who were verbally abusing pan-democrat volunteers on the day of the by-election. Kowloon West did not have that to count on.
For the majority of the public, the “Disqualification Issue” is irrelevant to daily life. If campaigners cannot make people empathize with the “Disqualification Issue”, then they should seek issues that are more tangible in daily life. These issues can be the overwhelming surplus in our reserve, resettlement and payments for reconstruction (Want to guess how many voters can understand “Say no to the Commodification of Housing”?), the national anthem legislation, Carrie Lam giving a free pass to the UGL/ $50 million case, SJ Teresa Cheng knowingly breaching the law, uniformed groups being asked to march by CCP stylistic standards… etc. These issues are comprehensible to the commoner, and only by comprehending the issue will he or she finds meaning in voting.
I understand Carrie Lam has quite a remarkable skill in giving the impression that “whatever’s at fault is not my fault”, and many do believe her. At the same time, the resources made available to pro-communist political parties is 10 times that of pan-dems. They have infinite resources to build grassroots networks and count votes. And let’s not forget, TVB was shameless enough to insist on not hosting an election forum, giving a cold shoulder to this entire by-election.
This by-election saw a major loss of votes in the public housing estate areas, meaning grassroots voters. This electoral result is a siren to the pan-democrats. The reality is that the referee, the linesmen and the host are all under the CCP. If democrats do not ponder on how to attract grassroots voters and the politically indecisive ones, a repetition of Kowloon West’s defeat is not impossible.
In the movie NO, what did the opposition use for the final version of their advertisement? It was song and dance modelled on commodity advertisement. There was no catastrophe in the ad, the imagery and music grab your attention immediately. The message of the advertisement is simple and direct: to vote, and vote NO; without a dictatorship there will be better days ahead. Only by grabbing the masses’ attention can you appeal to them. Do you know what the electorate of Kowloon West remembers most? “Vincent Cheng? He’s the brother in law of Myolie Wu.”
(P.S. Perhaps I’m being too clever too late with the full benefit of hindsight. Yet I’m not satisfied with being clever after the facts, nor am I here to boo and challenge. Beyond writing this article, I have strived to find my elders and friends to vote. With circumstances like these, I promised myself I will help out with canvassing in person in the upcoming election, let this be my proof.)
Since a series of LegCo disqualification (DQ) events last year, the party and the SAR government have been colluding to deprive Hong Kong people of the right to elect their representatives freely and deny the right to stand in election by means of political censorship. From now on, only the party's political proxies can be chosen. A sound justification for DQ is not bothered with anymore.
I agree with Professor Ma Ngok's article very much: Why not revert to the appointment system before the 1980s when things have degenerated to this stage? Why cloak ourselves with the façade of democracy?
The misfortune of being DQ-ed does not only fall on Agnes Chow, nor is it limited to LegCo. In the past few years, there were waves of DQ in society. There have been all sorts of political censorship to disqualify people in universities, the civil service system, media organizations, and the business sector. DQ was born in a new political order, dimensionally unprecedented, where the nation’s sovereignty hangs above the established social and political rights of citizens. This is an act of state that propels Hong Kong politics into the abyss of uncertainty. When the censorship incidents were reported, they often end with people’s submissive acquiescence rather than a reflection on the part of the state apparatus. An authoritarian regime’s greed cannot be satiated by its success in the political field. Beijing's strategy in ruling Hong Kong will be the full politicization of Hong Kong society, it will settle for nothing less.
In face of DQ events, we feel indignant, but we cannot lose our acumen and direction despite the ever-harsher political suppression. A macro perspective is especially needed in times like these. We should realize that the series of government suppressions is a stretched-out revenge for the Umbrella Movement. The government's target is not only the participants of the Occupy Movement but Hong Kong itself.
If we are to describe in detail this political scheme, which has begun, we can call it a “21st century nation re-shaping project”. The strategy is to overhaul the socio-political system and identity in this city through a top-down approach, so as to achieve what Beijing calls - “winning minds and hearts”, thereby getting rid of people's potential imagination for democracy. The goal is to turn SAR into a special economic zone.
This scheme may be highlighted by the abandonment of an entire generation of Hongkongers – not just Agnes Chow's generation (who were born in the 1990s) but the last four generations before Chow until the Baby Boom (basically those who have lived during the colonial era). The next generation, meaning the current secondary school students, is not considered “red” enough, and the scheme aims to create a national identity starting with primary school students.
If we say the Khmer Rouge changed the national identity through genocide, the “identity revamp project” will be completed through these four ways:
1. Reinterpret the existing legal and political system; distort and weaken the original protection of Hongkongers' socio-political rights; justify the socialist regime's intervention in every aspect in Hong Kong; monopolize all interpretations of legal and political discourse in Hong Kong. These will turn Hong Kong into a Chinese-style authoritarian legal and political system, instead of a liberal democratic polity.
2. Through the strategic allocation of a huge amount of social resources to the Greater Bay Area, redefine the geographical boundary by means of regional planning. Replace Hongkongers with Bay Area people. Making the daily life, capital, labour more flowing, changing Hongkongers' city life, and gradually dissolving the city identity of Hong Kong.
3. Let the party's force permeate in each and every aspect of society, going beyond political associations as it currently stands. Implanting the authoritarian regime into education, judiciary, workplace, departments and other social resources allocation system. Eventually, an ordinary citizen’s access to social resources will be conditional to his succumbence to the authoritarian regime instead of stressing the principle of fair competition. The life of those who do not stick to the regime will be arbitrarily DQ-ed or restricted.
4. Renovate the existing establishment and make it a stricter tool for united front work, or Tongzhan. Completely control the network and media information. Staging a “media war” for every social and political incident every day. Creating internal conflicts among the people – to affect the enemy and to extinguish self-recognition by mobilizing the people.
Most countries (including democratic ones) hate dissidents and will put labels on them to make their demands seemingly unreasonable, unrealistic and unfeasible. Some may ask, what can a commoner do when he may be DQed at any moment and the Basic Law may be reinterpreted at the regime’s whim?
Firstly, it is about rationality. People must have their own acumen and confront wrongdoings under this lopsided social system. At the same time, not only do we need some small victories, we also need moonshot thinking. We should construct our agenda with politically unfeasible ideas, so as to break the shrinking political room.
Secondly, it is about practice. The regime tries to give you up, enslave you and force you to emigrate. We should prove that even when the regime has stolen the sovereignty to suppress the people, the people remain determined not to submit to authoritarian rule. We should make the regime know that society is filled with people more capable of conducting good governance and winning hearts. The regime needs to know that their authoritarian way is only fit for ruling a land of puppets.
This will be the largest humiliation to Beijing's “new constitutional” rule in Hong Kong.
