Showing posts with label Macau. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Macau. Show all posts

20210417

[US CIA Intelligence Memorandum] 11 July 1967: The Situation in Hong Kong

The Situation in Hong Kong
Written by Office of Current Intelligence, US CIA; and Office of Economic Research
11 July 1967 [Intelligence Memorandum, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA]


- Summary -

The border clash on 8 July during which five policemen were killed in an exchange of small arms fire with Communist militia makes it clear that the Chinese authorities intend to keep the Hong Kong issue hot. Peking's official treatment of the incident thus far, however, does not indicate that the Chinese Communists are aiming for a showdown with the British at this time. There will probably be more trouble during the weeks ahead. Riots and violent demonstrations inside the Colony appear almost certain and there may be additional border incidents. Given the state of confusion within the Chinese Communist leadership and the pressures generated in the capital, at the provincial level, and within the Communist. apparatus in Hong Kong by the latest phase of the "cultural revolution," these could get out of hand and escalate into a direct confrontation over the status of the Colony. The pattern of events during the past several months suggests, however, that Peking is operating on a longer range plan calculated to erode the position of the Hong Kong authorities and thus prepare the ground for an effort by the local Communist apparatus to assume de facto control over Hong Kong in a year or so--on the pattern of the Macao takeover last winter. The resolute stand taken thus far by the British, the demonstrated effectiveness of control measures adopted by the Hong Kong authorities, and the lack of “revolutionary" enthusiasm shown by the general population in the Colony, seem unlikely to encourage Peking to move more quickly. The Chinese Communists can be expected to continue--and perhaps to increase--their support of local opposition in Hong Kong but probably will refrain from actions involving the risk of war, or even moves which would disrupt the Colony to such an extent that Peking was denied the vital foreign exchange earned there--approximately one third of China's total earnings in 1966.

- Background -

1. The present troubles in Hong Kong can be traced back to a shift in Communist tactics with respect to the Colony which apparently was adopted around the beginning of this year. Prior to that time the Communist apparatus in Hong Kong had been relatively circumspect. Instructions issued in January 1967 by a senior official who had returned from a visit to China the preceding month changed this line. He ordered increased exploitation of industrial disputes in order to indoctrinate the workers with "Maoist thought” and stated specifically that the objective of the new program was to further the “anti-British struggle.”

2. There was an increase in industrial unrest during the late winter and early spring, but the British authorities sought to avoid trouble by standing clear of the disputes and leaving them to be settled by labor-management bargaining. On 6 May, however, violence broke out during a factory strike which required police intervention, The Communist press -- first in Hong Kong and then on the mainland -- reacted with charges that the Hong Kong Government had committed "atrocities" and demanded that those responsible be punished.

3. The initial propaganda attack was followed by three days of Communist-inspired rioting which began on 11 May. On 15 May Peking took formal cognizance of the situation by delivering a Foreign Ministry statement to the British chargé demanding that workers arrested in Hong Kong be released, that those responsible for the arrests be punished, that apologies and compensation be offered, and that a guarantee be provided against any similar incident in the future. A campaign of harassment against British diplomatic personnel in China began at this time. Massive demonstrations were staged outside the British Embassy. The British Consulate in Shanghai was forced to close and the officers there were roughly handled by Red Guard hoodlums.

- The Initiative for the Disorders -

4. It is still not clear whether the strike violence on 6 May and the ensuing riots in the Colony were the result of local Communist initiative or were specifically ordered by Peking. The nine-day delay between the incident on 6 May and the Foreign Ministry statement on 15 May suggests, however, that the campaign originated in Hong Kong. The leaders of the local apparatus almost certainly felt under considerable pressure to demonstrate their militancy — in view of the current demands of the "cultural revolution” — and may have decided that the time was ripe to launch a major campaign based on what appear to have been very general instructions to take a harder line in exploiting labor unrest.

5. It is possible that the local leaders overestimated their own capabilities, underestimated the ability of the British to resist pressure, and presented an optimistic picture to Peking which secured official endorsement and direct involvement of the Chinese Communist regime in support of their plans. Foreign Ministry officials in the capital had been under heavy extremist pressure for months and might therefore have been inclined to put "politics in command" over their normal caution.

- The British Reaction and its Effects -

6. Undoubtedly encouraged by the Foreign Ministry statement, the Hong Kong apparatus launched a series of "Red Guard" type demonstrations and encouraged strikes designed to cripple public services and promote mass disorder. The Hong Kong Government was Operating on the assumption that Peking did not intend to seize the Colony and that in this situation it had much to gain and little to lose by refusing to give an inch. London refused to reply to the Chinese Foreign Ministry demands and issued a statement supporting the Hong Kong authorities. The Hong Kong police stood firm and generally were able to maintain order while employing a minimum of force.

7. Failure of the efforts of local Communists to intimidate the British began to sap their morale and a number of them expressed disappointment over the support they were receiving from Peking. (redacted; 1.5(c)(d), 3.4(b)(1)(6)) on 23 May a number of senior officials in the Hong Kong apparatus revealed growing discouragement. They attributed the resolute stand taken by the British to a "reasonable" judgment that China did not wish to take over Hong Kong at that time. They were reported to believe that Peking did not entirely agree with efforts by the local apparatus to "escalate" the confrontation and privately admitted that the British were following a clever policy in suppressing the demonstrations without creating a host of martyrs—in contrast to the mistakes made by the Portuguese in Macao.

8. By the end of May the Colony had returned to relative calm despite Sporadic harassment strikes inspired by the Communists and financed in part by Peking through front organizations. Communist officials in Hong Kong began at this point to sav that the struggle against the British could take as long as two years. This situation continued throughout most of June. A "general strike" was called on 24 June but the next day a senior Communist official in the local party organization admitted to his subordinates that the effort had been a failure. (redacted; 1.5(c)(d), 3.4(b)(1)(6)) the call for a general strike had been “wishful thinking” because "the masses were difficult to mobilize."

- Peking's Actions -

9. Communist China made a number of gestures in support of the Hong Kong Communists at this time, but they were little more than token encouragement. On 25 June, the day following the abortive general strike, Peking halted deliveries of water to Hong Kong. This was clearly intended to harass the British and to remind them of their dependence on mainland water supplies. The Chinese took this step only after they had delivered all the water they had contracted to supply under the existing agreement, however, and at a time of year when the water situation in the Colony is normally not critical. Peking is not obligated to sell more water to Hong Kong until October and has ignored a British request -- probably designed to probe Chinese intentions -- for additional supplies at this time.

10. On 26 June the British chargé was summoned to the Foreign Ministry and given a note protesting alleged overflights of Chinese territory and charging the British with "bloody persecution" in suppressing the Hong Kong general strike. The Chinese note once again called for immediate fulfillment of the demands made on 15 May but contained no time limit for compliance. The chargé reported that his meeting with the Foreign Ministry official was conducted in "very low key," and commented that the note appeared mainly designed to divert attention from the failure of the general strike.

11. The Hong Kong Communists called a four-day "food strike" on 29 June and Peking cooperated by banning shipment of meat and produce to the Colony from the mainland. The strike proved to be ineffective -- 85 percent of the vendors were back in business by the fourth day -- and the ban on food shipments was ended when the strike collapsed on 3 July. Continuation of the ban for a long period would have worked a hardship on the predominately Chinese population of the Colony and Peking was apparently unwilling to do this -- or to lose the foreign exchange earnings involved -- once the ineffectiveness of the effort by the local organization had been demonstrated.

- Current Chinese Attitude -

12. The Chinese Communists probably believe that they have committed themselves too far to permit a complete disengagement from the Hong Kong issue and Peking probably believes it necessary to provide sufficient political and financial support to maintain pressure and agitation at roughly the present level. It seems likely, however, that Chinese Communist actions will in the main be determined by the effectiveness of the Hong Kong apparatus in securing support from the local population. An editorial in People's Daily on 5 July emphasized the role of the local Communist organization in continuing the struggle. The editorial asserted that the "worker's strike" is the principal weapon in the battle against the British at present’ and declared that the Hong Kong workers, the "main force," must do a good job in uniting the population behind them.

- Recent Incidents -

13. If the clash on 8 July at the border village of Sha Tau Kok in the Hong Kong New Territories was ordered by Peking, it should probably be interpreted in this context -- as a move to keep the pressure on and to encourage the local Communist organization. The village straddles the frontier --which runs along its main street -- and provides an excellent arena for hit-and-run raids in a war of nerves. On 8 July a mob of demonstrators, some of them armed, came over from Communist territory. Police attempting to eject them were fired upon. Five officers were killed and more than eleven were wounded in the unequal exchange which ensued -- police revolvers end carbines against infantry weapons in the hands of Communist militia.

14. The incident was almost certainly premeditated and the fact that five Chinese army officers were observed inspecting the area following a smaller demonstration which took place two days earlier suggests, that the Communists planned for a fire-fight. During the five hours while the clash was in progress, a Chinese army battalion was moved up piecemeal to the frontier. (redacted; 1.5(c)(d), 3.4(b)(1)(6)) Information which has subsequently become available raises the possibility that the Sha Tau Kok fire-fight was planned and executed by local hot-heads or perhaps by a provincial faction with an ax to grind. Peking may have learned of the clash only after the fact. Senior Communist officials in Hong Kong were apparently taken by surprise, and it seems likely that they would have been forewarned if the fighting had been part of a centrally controlled campaign.

15. The British chargé delivered a protest to the Foreign Ministry on 9 July and got the impression during his meeting with Vice Minister Lo Keui-po that the Chinese had been caught off base by the incident. Lo appeared embarrassed when the chargé quoted account from the Communist press in Hong Kong admitting that Chinese militia had crossed the border and fired on Hong Kong police. The chargé reports that Lo was ill at ease throughout the interview and he believes the Chinese fully realized the seriousness of the incident and were on the defensive.

16. In any event Peking's official treatment of the clash does not indicate an intention to build on the incident. The Foreign Ministry note delivered to the British chargé on 9 July blamed the Hong Kong authorities and called on the British to apologize, to punish those responsible, to pay compensation, and to guarantee that no similar incidents would occur in the future. The note was not so strongly worded as some earlier Chinese statements on Hong Kong, contained no threat of reprisal, and did not set a deadline for compliance with Peking's demands.

17. On 9 July Communist zealots in Hong Kong provoked a riot in which one policeman and a number of demonstrators were killed. More of the same is probably in prospect. Communist-controlled schools in the Colony are reported to be planning to keep students on hand during the summer vacation to take part in anti-government activity. It seems unlikely, however, that Peking intends at this time to go much beyond support of this kind of activity, possibly accompanied by recurrent harassment along the frontier. Escalation of Chinese military threats to Hong Kong would involve the risk of war, which could develop into a conflict with the US. Use of economic sanctions at Peking’s disposal -- cutting off water supplies and stopping food shipments -- would inflict further damage on the Communist position with the Hong Kong population and could result in the loss of vital foreign exchange earned through trade with the Colony.

- China's Financial Interests -

18. Hong Kong is Communist China's largest single export market. It is also China's most important single source of foreign exchange. Last year the Chinese Communists earned over $550 million in Hong Kong trade, approximately one-third of their total earnings of foreign exchange. Chinese exchange earnings from Hong Kong have increased rapidly, almost doubling in the last five years and are still growing. Almost all of this would be lost if Peking took over the Colony, and a significant proportion would go by the board if the Chinese Communists took action short of seizure, which in effect would put Hong Kong out of business. Some direct sales to the Colony would continue but there would be a marked decline in foreign exchange earnings which would be a serious blow to Peking. The Chinese are obliged to buy some kinds of specialized scientific and technical equipment abroad as well as ordinary machinery and chemical fertilizer. A major item of expenditure for the last six years has been for the purchase of grain to meet the requirements of China's expanding population. Peking spent $375 million in foreign exchange during 1966 to buy grain.

20150111

Bill Chou: Patriotic Generation - Political mission for tertiary institutions in Macau

Patriotic Generation - Political mission for tertiary institution in Macau
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Bill Chou (仇國平)
Original: https://www.facebook.com/macauconcealers/photos/a.158212900914486.37247.153478958054547/766513590084411/?type=1 
[Bill Chou is the former associate professor of Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Macau]
(Photo Source: TDM)
According to the report of Macau Daily, Zhao Wei (趙偉), the Rector of University of Macau (UMac), asked teachers to be politically neutral, and fired me because I violated such regulation. Yet recently, Zhao Wei was slapped by the Tertiary Education Services Department (GAES) in the face – GAES will assess the performance of institutes of the tertiary education sector according to the standard of "Love country, love Macau". In other words, university teachers in Macau have to "uphold the banner of 'Love country, love Macau'", and cannot be "politically neutral".
GAES has issued a press release on 5th January 2015, saying that they will assess the ability of graduates according to six abilities, one of them being "Love country, love Macau". In the future, tertiary institutions will "enhance" patriotic education in terms of curriculum and co-curricular activities according to such assessment. When Chinese education authorities did not draw a clear line between the party and the country, the "patriotic standards" in Macau will have no choice but to be "par with" that in mainland China, probably including the "Seven Speak-nots" issued by the General Office of Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, that is, not allowed to mention historical mistakes made by CCP, universal values, freedom of press, citizens society, judicial independence and privileged capitalist class. In subjects like history and politics, teachers might not teach whatever they want. Politically incorrect or non-patriotic concepts might not be allowed in class.

This is absolutely not castle in the air. When I was still in UMac, I was asked by Wang Jianwei, the department head, to reduce the criticisms to public policies of China, and enhance criticisms on USA. And some students are hired by the school or department in order to supervise my speech in class. I once tried to hold a Xinjiang Policy Academic Symposium, but was halted by Wang Jianwei because of political sensitiveness. When "Love country, love Macau" became a yardstick in measuring graduates and effectiveness of universities, such intervention to academic freedom will become natural.

People always say, "Today's Macau will be tomorrow's Hong Kong". Under CCP, Hong Kong and Macau are under the same office, and the policy will be similar. Rao Geping, Basic Law Committee member and Peking University Law School professor, said Hong Kong needs "decolonised" education and students have to be instilled with "national awareness". Chen Zuo'er, president of Chinese Association on Hong Kong and Macao Studies (CAHKMS), said Secretary for Education should be under the supervision of Central Authorities. If Macau makes universities fitting in such patriotic education, it's hard to say HKSARG will not implement national education in primary, secondary and tertiary education.

======
Chinese version below, authorisation from reproduction acquired from Macau Concealors:
【愛瞞博客】澳門高等院校的政治任務: 打造愛國愛澳新一代 (一)

文:仇國平 (前澳門大學政府與行政學系副教授)

根據「澳門日報」報導,澳門大學校長趙偉說,要求教師政治中立,並因我教學政治不中立而解僱我。最近,趙偉被高等教育辦公室打嘴巴: 高教辦即將以學生的 「愛國愛澳」表現,評估高等院校的成效。換言之,日後大學教師教學要高舉愛國愛澳旗幟,絕不可以教學政治中立。

高教辦在1月5日發出新聞稿,指為了評估高等院校的成效,將會就六個學生能力範圍制訂指標,評估畢業生的黎波里能力。其中一個能力範圍,就是「愛國愛澳」。將來,當院校知道學生的愛國愛澳表現要接受當局評估,自然會在課程上以至課外活動,加強愛國教育。在現時中國的黨國一體下,澳門的愛國標準難免和內地接軌,包括有可能仿效中共中央辦公廳向大學下達的「七不講」指令,不能在課堂上講授中共的歷史錯誤、普世價值、新聞自由、公民社會、公民權利、司法獨立、權貴資產階級。歷史及政治等較具爭議的學科,教師不可隨意教授各種學說。被視為政治不正確、不愛國的觀念,可能不准向學生教授。

這絕不是危言聳聽: 當我還在澳大的時候,曾被系主任王建偉教授要求,減少對中國公共政策的批評,以及加強對美國的批評。而部份學生,被招攬為校方/ 系方監督教師在課堂上言論。另外,我曾經舉辦中國新疆政策學術研討會,被王建偉以政治敏感為由要求停辦。當「愛國愛澳」成為評估畢業生以至大學成效的指標,這些干預學術自由的舉動,便變的理所當然了。

坊間常說: 今日澳門,明日香港。港澳政策屬中共同一個政策系統,兩地政策部份互通有無。身兼基本法委員會委員的北京大學法學院教授饒戈平日前表示,香港需要推行「去殖民地化」教育,培養國家意識。前中國國務院港澳辦常務副主任、全國港澳研究會會長陳佐洱,香港教育局長要接受中央監督。倘若澳門成功在大學內推行「愛國愛澳」教育,難保港府以「去殖民地化」做幌子,在香港大中小學推行國民教育。