Letter to South China Morning Post:
The phrase “Gang of Four” should strike fear into any heart.
In “Brat in the family”, (Nov 9: see below) Phillip Fang says that Anson Chan, Martin Lee, Jimmy Lai and Joseph Zen are in “open defiance” – presumably of Beijing – and are thus a “Gang of Four” who should be considered “seditious” if we had an Article 23 law, seditious in part because they are not “grateful” enough for the mainland’s alleged largesse. Grateful? That demand is not the sign of a mature and self-confident government. I was in Peking during the dark days of the original “Gang of Four”, in the seventies, when the government was certainly not self confident. I recall how it was then: no freedom of speech, labour camps for dissidents. Pretty much like it is now, it seems.
To hear locals labelled thus is chilling stuff indeed, especially when those so labelled are staunch supporters of freedom of speech. To call them a “Gang of Four” is a grotesque inversion.
Fang is just a retired interpreter. But perhaps - though let’s hope not — he is a stalking horse for central government opinion.
If this is what Peking is thinking, it’s even more scary and chilling. After all, Chan, Lee, Lai and Zen, whatever we may think of their views, are by no stretch of the imagination “endangering state security”. They are committed and concerned residents of Hong Kong — patriots, too, I’ll suggest — who speak openly and robustly about many issues that affect Hong Kong and the nation. That’s part of the hurly-burly of an open society, part of working through issues and part of providing a safety valve for differing ideas.
That Fang should suggest Hong Kong has descended into “lawlessness and anarchy”, through “open defiance” is laughable. It is all the more insulting coming, as it does, from a mainland official – after all, on the mainland, the law is routinely flouted and on the mainland there are daily hundreds of demonstrations by a population incensed by unlawful and corrupt officials. Yet the mainland, via Fang, seeks to lecture Hong Kong on law & order and anarchy? Give me a break!
It’s to be hoped that Hong Kong people let Fang know in no uncertain terms that his trial balloon is a lead balloon; it is — or ought to be -- going nowhere.
All in all, scary stuff.
Yours, etc,
Peter F.
Hong Kong
The phrase “Gang of Four” should strike fear into any heart.
In “Brat in the family”, (Nov 9: see below) Phillip Fang says that Anson Chan, Martin Lee, Jimmy Lai and Joseph Zen are in “open defiance” – presumably of Beijing – and are thus a “Gang of Four” who should be considered “seditious” if we had an Article 23 law, seditious in part because they are not “grateful” enough for the mainland’s alleged largesse. Grateful? That demand is not the sign of a mature and self-confident government. I was in Peking during the dark days of the original “Gang of Four”, in the seventies, when the government was certainly not self confident. I recall how it was then: no freedom of speech, labour camps for dissidents. Pretty much like it is now, it seems.
To hear locals labelled thus is chilling stuff indeed, especially when those so labelled are staunch supporters of freedom of speech. To call them a “Gang of Four” is a grotesque inversion.
Fang is just a retired interpreter. But perhaps - though let’s hope not — he is a stalking horse for central government opinion.
If this is what Peking is thinking, it’s even more scary and chilling. After all, Chan, Lee, Lai and Zen, whatever we may think of their views, are by no stretch of the imagination “endangering state security”. They are committed and concerned residents of Hong Kong — patriots, too, I’ll suggest — who speak openly and robustly about many issues that affect Hong Kong and the nation. That’s part of the hurly-burly of an open society, part of working through issues and part of providing a safety valve for differing ideas.
That Fang should suggest Hong Kong has descended into “lawlessness and anarchy”, through “open defiance” is laughable. It is all the more insulting coming, as it does, from a mainland official – after all, on the mainland, the law is routinely flouted and on the mainland there are daily hundreds of demonstrations by a population incensed by unlawful and corrupt officials. Yet the mainland, via Fang, seeks to lecture Hong Kong on law & order and anarchy? Give me a break!
It’s to be hoped that Hong Kong people let Fang know in no uncertain terms that his trial balloon is a lead balloon; it is — or ought to be -- going nowhere.
All in all, scary stuff.
Yours, etc,
Peter F.
Hong Kong
__________________________________
Brat in the family |
Philip Fang denounces the ingratitude displayed by some Hongkongers who enjoy the prosperity powered by their home country's boom but continue to deny Beijing the loyalty and trust that is rightfully due |
| Wang Guangya , head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, has let it be known that the No 1 criterion in the selection of the next chief executive would be patriotism. Patriotism presupposes loyalty and trust - the bricks and mortar of all lasting human relations. Are Hong Kong people patriotic? The answer is an emphatic "no". Generally, Hong Kong Chinese have no idea of their national identity and heritage, and are loath to identify with their brethren on the mainland. They would rather identify themselves with Taiwanese Chinese, Singaporean Chinese, Australian Chinese and American Chinese. They think they are superior. The mindset that fosters this superiority complex is no mystery; Hong Kong people worship money, power and celebrity. Hong Kong creates no true wealth. It indulges in the culture of money making money. Back in the 1980s, Hong Kong wages rocketed and production moved across the border. Hong Kong has since been reduced to a service-based economy. Its limited terrain has become its new wealth generator. Today, over 70 per cent of Hong Kong's market capitalisation comes from property and related activities; Hong Kong is one of the most expensive places to live in the world today. This social polarisation has moved the city dangerously close to the red-light signal on the United Nations index measuring social upheaval in the wake of income disparity. The central government must have confidence that the chief executive can keep things under control in Hong Kong. Normally, the interest of the overwhelming majority of 1.3billion Chinese should have priority but, in the case of Hong Kong, the reverse is true. Beijing has given Hong Kong people carte blanche to run their own affairs. Hong Kong pays no taxes to the central government, which also picks up the bill for the People's Liberation Army, which ensures the special administrative region's security. Hong Kong's level of taxation is very low compared with other similar economies. Yet, mainland China's "tax pain" ranked second in the world in 2009, according to Forbes. Vice-Premier Li Keqiang , during his recent visit, said Beijing had picked Hong Kong to be China's future centre for overseas renminbi trading. Hong Kong last year ranked third in the world as a recipient of foreign direct investment, according to a UN report, a mesmerising performance considering the SAR's size. All these good things have happened to Hong Kong and its people because of one reason - their country, China. Hong Kong should ask itself this: "My country has done so much for me, what have I done for it in return?" It's time for the people of Hong Kong to ask themselves whether they have lived up to the expectations of the central government. The way things stand, they have let Beijing down badly. Hongkongers have behaved like spoiled brats cosseted with gifts, perquisites and privileges. Instead of showing their gratitude and appreciation, they have turned on their own country. Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was right to condemn the recent acts of hooliganism under the guise of free speech and assembly in the Legislative Council. Hong Kong today seems to be used to lawlessness and anarchy. The law must be upheld and the authorities must not go soft on people who take the law into their own hands. The open defiance of the "Gang of Four" - Anson Chan Fang On-san, Martin Lee Chu-ming, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun - and the Civic Party, headed by Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, only points to the urgency for the government and Legco to push through Article 23, under which many of their acts would be considered as endangering state security, that is, sedition. People must be made to understand they are Chinese citizens and subject to Chinese laws and sanctions. Western precepts of democracy and human rights cannot be applied directly to a country the size of China, which for centuries has evolved around Confucian ethics. In the selection of national development models and priorities, China has always maintained an aloofness from the West. Equanimity and self-reliance have been its hallmark. In money management, the central bank has favoured a conservative and cautious policy. This has enabled China to stay clear of the economic meltdown. The recent downgrading of the ratings of the US and some euro zone nations shattered the myth that the US Federal Reserve and Wall Street knew better when it came to how to manage money. The world, and Europe in particular at present, is looking to China for help. As part of a family with a patriotic background, listed as descendents of revolutionary martyrs, I sincerely hope the people of Hong Kong will take to heart the overall interest of their country and people, and ponder Hong Kong's own future. |
