My letter was the featured one in today's South China Morning Post. So far it's running 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Update 24 Nov: has had most number of stars of any letter this year, still tracking 4.5/5.
Update 24 Nov: has had most number of stars of any letter this year, still tracking 4.5/5.
Those who speak openly about national issues are patriots, not traitors |
| I refer to the article by Philip Fang ("Brat in the family", November 9). He said that Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Martin Lee Chu-ming, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun were in "open defiance", presumably of Beijing, and were thus a "Gang of Four". He also said they would be considered "seditious" if we had an Article 23 law, in part because they were not "grateful" enough for the mainland's alleged largesse. Grateful? That demand is not the sign of a mature or self-confident government. I was in Beijing during the dark days of the original Gang of Four, in the 1970s, 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, come to think of it. To hear Hongkongers labelled thus is chilling indeed, especially when those so labelled are staunch supporters of freedom of speech. To call them a Gang of Four is a grotesque inversion. Mr 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 Beijing is thinking, it is even more scary. After all, Mrs Chan, Mr Lee, Mr Lai and Cardinal 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 would suggest - who speak openly and robustly about many issues that affect Hong Kong and the nation. That is 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 Mr 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 [former] mainland official - after all, on the mainland, the law is routinely flouted and on the mainland there are daily demonstrations by a population incensed by unlawful and corrupt officials. Yet the mainland, via Mr Fang, seeks to lecture Hong Kong on law and order and anarchy? Give me a break. It is to be hoped that Hong Kong people let Mr Fang know in no uncertain terms that his trial balloon is a lead balloon; it is, or ought to be, going nowhere. Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay Another letter, supporting my view, on 16th Nov: Philip Fang ("Brat in the family", November 9) cannot be more wrong in accusing Hong Kong people of being unpatriotic brats whose achievements were due to support from mother China. If he were right, the Communist Party under Deng Xiaoping would have made an unforgivable mistake in introducing the "one country, two systems" arrangement to reincorporate Hong Kong into China. Hong Kong has achieved what it has accomplished because it has developed along its particular path. If this were not the case, there would not have been the need for Deng to allow Hong Kong to keep the system it had. Being true to what Hong Kong is does not make its people unpatriotic to China, particularly if this has been beneficial to the country. If the city had been harmful to the People's Republic, it would not have been tolerated by patriotic leaders like Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao . The real issue is what one means by "patriotism". Mr Fang's definition seems to be one that if the people of Hong Kong do not do what he expects of them, they are unpatriotic and should be subjected to the draconian requirements of the proposed Article 23. Being approved of by Mr Fang - and to do so implies going against the approval of three generations of Chinese leaders - cannot be the definition of a Chinese patriot. A patriot is someone who loves one's country and is prepared to do what it takes for the good of one's country. Since the most basic raison d'etre for a country to exist is the betterment of its people, the ultimate yardstick of one's patriotism is whether one is working for the respect, dignity, rights and betterment of one's fellow citizens. Hong Kong and its people have, since 1997, demonstrated that they have met such a requirement - without Article 23. Steve Tsang, professor of contemporary Chinese studies, University of Nottingham, England |
