LegCo Logic

The Hong Kong Government Explains Its Political Reform Package

The Invading Influenza Army

ATV demonstrated the other day - not for the first time - that they desperately need a numerate news editor.  Reporting on plans to give new flu shots to elderly residents of care homes, Arthur Urquiola stated that "Some 200,000 doctors will be on hand to administer the injections".  According to government statistics, Hong Kong had 13,203 registered doctors at the end of 2013 - about 1 per 550 members of the population - so either our medical schools have been extraordinarily busy in the past year raising that proportion to 1 in 35, or there's something seriously wrong with ATV's figures.  Furthermore, with only 57,200 people in such homes, that many doctors seems a little excessive for the purpose.

Perhaps all those thousands of people on the streets with wheeled suitcases are visiting medical volunteers bringing in urgently needed vaccine supplies.  But in that case, what are they taking back home with them?  I think we should be told.

[Picture: CNN]

Carrie On Regardless

The wit and wisdom of Carrie Lam:

ATV News: "Chief Secretary Carrie Lam urged pan-democratic lawmakers who have vowed to veto the government's reform proposal to put aside their ideals in pursuit of democracy and support the plan."

ATV News: "Lam shouted slogans and called on everyone not to listen to people who claim the package is not real universal suffrage."

Return to Paradise

If you're thinking I haven't posted anything for a while, it's mainly because I was away in Europe for three weeks, and then didn't return to watching the news for a week after getting back to Hong Kong.

You can't imagine how gloriously refreshing it was to take a break from Hong Kong politics - not to be subjected to CY's robotic intonation of Beijing's latest nonsense every day; Rita Fan's gleeful smirk as she again tells Hong Kong people they haven't a hope of achieving their legitimate aspirations; Carrie Lam's forced smile as she again reads from a script she must know is rubbish, while dreaming of her retirement home in England (poor England!); Maria Tam gazing adoringly at Xi Jinping like a lovestruck groupie who's just won admittance to Led Zeppelin's dressing room; greasy Greg So and the equally oleaginous Rimsky Yuen peddling their latest line of Beijing-approved snake oil; obscure mainland academics who've never been near Hong Kong posing as experts on the place; the permanently angry Leticia Lee berating anyone who doesn't love the CCP, or who does love someone of their own sex; Robert Chow repeatedly trying to get in the Guinness Book of Records for gathering the largest number of dubious signatures on a petition; imported blue ribbon thugs; and all the rest of the unlovely establishment crew.

When leaving London I usually buy a decent bottle of single malt at Heathrow - a more expensive exercise every year.  This year it was Talisker Dark Storm, which cost me around £42.  Then in transit at Frankfurt, I noticed they had it at a special offer price of €44, so I picked up another bottle.  Out of curiosity, I checked the duty free price in Hong Kong on arrival - HK$730.  Let's compare:

Then I did actually hear one bit of current news: the Hong Kong government, alarmed at the recent drop in tourist revenues, is planning a new campaign to promote Hong Kong as a shoppers' paradise - something it hasn't been for more than 20 years.  The irony here is that it's largely the overwhelming influx of visitors, mainly from the mainland, that has jacked up commercial rents to unprecedented heights, forcing prices up to far above paradisiacal levels.  So the government wants to attract more of them.

Anyway, here I am back in paradise...

If the Message Stinks, Repeat It Louder

When not blatantly brown-nosing China's leaders with an editorial (above) that could have been cloned straight from the front page of the China Daily, the South China Morning Post is usually sucking up to Hong Kong's business lobby.

Naturally, therefore, it joins the hysterical chorus demanding a third runway at Chek Lap Kok.  The public, it tells us, "can be excused for feeling confused about the development of the airport's third runway".  The Post suffers from no such uncertainty, assuring us with an air of smug superiority, "that the project is still challenged by different sectors at this stage underlines the need for better explanation."

That the project has failed to win public support is arrogantly assumed by the writer to be a mere failure of communication.  All that needs to be done, in his (or her) view, is to keep shouting the same message at the public until it gets across to them.

Does it not occur to these dumbclucks that the real reason the plan "has yet to get broad public support" may be that the case for the third runway is far from proven?  Perhaps the public is not convinced because the case for the project is not convincing.  For a start, even the editorial admits that it has not yet been decided who will pay for this grandiose mega-project, estimated to cost HK$136 billion -- though such massive infrastructure ventures typically end up costing far more than the originally budgeted figure.

Although the government conducted a public consultation exercise on the issue back in 2011, this was based on a highly selective presentation of the facts, and several trends have changed since then.  China's economy has slowed, along with the rest of the world's, probably leaving forecasts of future demand overstated.  Climate scientists' warnings of the dangers of global warming have become more urgent, though carbon emissions were not even considered in the original environmental impact assessment.  Even "pro-China" politicians are now calling for a cap on tourist numbers as Hong Kong creaks at the seams to accommodate too many mainland visitors.  And recent studies suggest that the beleaguered local Chinese White Dolphin population - whose habitat sits in the way of the proposed land reclamation - is under even greater stress than previously thought. All these have negative implications for airport expansion.

In fact so many factors are involved that it is doubtful that any forecast of future air travel demand can be more than a best guess, depending on what assumptions one chooses to make.  Economic developments, fuel costs, the ongoing movement of manufacturing away from the Pearl River Delta deeper into China, the adoption of larger planes like the Airbus A380, the effect on wildlife, the impact of China's expanding High Speed Rail network on demand for air travel, the shortage of local construction workers - so many uncertainties surround all these variables that any prediction is likely to be well off the mark.  In fact the only certainties -- increased noise and air pollution if the project goes ahead and the likely wiping out of our local dolphin population -- all support the cancellation of the expansion plan.

"Our status as a regional aviation hub" the Post argues "hinges on whether we can compete with other airports" -- but readers' comments beneath the original editorial question whether we can -- or need to be -- a regional aviation hub in a region with four other airports. Indeed, some suggest that the region's airspace is too crowded already to permit the number of extra flights required to make the additional runway cost-justifiable.

Of course those in the aviation sector -- with the Post as their cheerleader -- predictably insist that the third runway is urgently essential, because it will benefit them.  But is is by no means clear that it will benefit the community as a whole.

Making It Better:
Worldwide Fund for Nature

Lighten Up, Loonies!

The Hong Kong government's arrogant insistence that it's right about everything, even as it steers the ship of state ever closer to the looming rocks, is annoying enough - it's come to the point where I feel physical revulsion every time I turn on the TV and the face of CY Leung, Gregory So, Paul Chan or one or two other particularly creepy ministers looms out at me.  Now it seems some of these people are going totally off the mental rails into the stratospheric realms of hyperbolic simile, far removed from mundane reality.

The government has been seeking HK$35 million from the Legislative Council to set up an Innovation & Technology Bureau - a request opposed by many pan-democrats in the Council.  The proposed Bureau is supposed to spur the development of the technology sector in Hong Kong - though many in the IT sector, one of its principal intended beneficiaries, doubt it will achieve anything other than adding a few more overpaid political jobs to an already bloated roster.

Partly for this reason, and partly out of their generalised (and not entirely ill-founded) principle that anything the government wants to do must be wrong, the pan-democrats in LegCo are opposing the government's funding request.  Hong Kong politics as usual, so far - but this is where things start to get crazy.  First Chief Executive CY Leung likens moves to prevent the Bureau's formation to "killing a baby in the womb".  Then ExCo member Fanny Law literally brings down a curse on opponents of the Bureau, suggesting they will "be destroyed by heaven and Earth" (apparently heavy stuff in Chinese).

As if this isn't extreme enough, she compounds her self-righteous posturing by likening the bill's opponents to terrorists, declaring "Just like the Islamic [State] when I saw them kidnap people and just chop off their heads ... I was just heartbroken."  Well, lighten up, CY and Fanny - the pan-democrats may often be irritating, even to their own supporters, but so far as I'm aware not even the occasionally rabid-mannered Wong Yuk-Man has yet started kidnapping people and brutally slashing their throats.

It's not a moral issue, not a matter of life and death - just a new government department that may or may not help boost Hong Kong's technology sector.  Probably not - I tend to agree with Civic Party legislator Alan Leong that the administration lacks the vision necessary to boost innovation and technology in Hong Kong. In fact, efforts by governments usually have far less to do with the expansion of a particular economic sector in any country than the chance confluence of the right conditions for its growth.

So less of the heavy talk and more of the calm discussion, please - and Fanny, if you continue to have these delusions, you can get free psychiatric treatment at government hospitals in Hong Kong.  Just ask - they won't cut your head off!

The Slow Painful Death of ATV

Amid all the hopeful talk of finding new investors to revive ATV's fortunes, no one seems to be paying much attention to one awkward fact: the station's licence expires later this year.  Since it has already failed to pay its licence fee on time and cannot even afford to pay its staff at present, the prospect that any sane broadcasting authority would renew its licence is virtually nil (though in Hong Kong's current crazy political climate nothing can be entirely ruled out).  Anyone putting money into ATV would be extremely unlikely to recover their investment in less than a few years, even if they could turn the station around and persuade people to watch it again, something which would require substantial additional investment in some decent programmes.  Meanwhile they would run a strong risk of the licence not being renewed, sending their investment straight down the drain.

Unless an insane investor comes along, therefore, the station is likely to expire completely within a month or two, opening the way for a renewed licence application from HKTV which the government would find it very hard to turn down this time.

Meanwhile the station still limps feebly along.  The English evening news, now curtailed to 15 minutes, shows little sign of being edited and turns up some entertaining bloopers.  Apparently all the pilots of the Taiwanese airline that had a crash recently are going to be "evacuated" (evaluated).  Even more surprisingly, the Costa Concordia was "a floating hotel 290 km long".  That being the distance from Hong Kong to Shantou, it's not surprising it was so difficult to salvage - unless they mean 290 m, the sunken ship's real length.

And as for the sports news, why does Bo Leung insist on referring to every goalkeeper as "the custodian"?  That's a pretentious word that sports hacks occasionally use for stylistic variety, but no ordinary football fan would do so - the goalie or the keeper will do nicely, thank you.

Overlooking the Obvious

Ten facts that should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person here, but apparently not to the Hong Kong government:

1. Hong Kong is already grossly overpopulated and doesn't have room for more people.
2. A growing population will need more green space for relaxation and recreation, not less, so we should stop eating away at it for other purposes.
3. Pushing through the government's blatantly undemocratic political reform proposal is more likely to exacerbate discontent in Hong Kong than to eliminate it.
4. With more and more people and a finite supply of land, the village house policy is clearly unsustainable (apart from being a scam whereby "New Territories villagers" who don't even live in Hong Kong any more come back to grab their piece of subsidised land).
5. There is a limit to the number of tourists Hong Kong can accept without straining its infrastructure to breaking point.
6. The bridge to Macau will never be economically viable or environmentally sensible.
7. If you're going to build a high speed railway between two cities (not a bad ideas in itself), the termini should be at major transport intersections to facilitate onward travel, not stuck in the middle of nowhere.
8. As one of the richest cities in the world (in terms of GDP per capita), Hong Kong could easily afford to eliminate poverty and give all its citizens a decent standard of living - there is absolutely no reason why 80-year-old ladies should be reduced to scavenging cardboard boxes to survive.
9. When small businesses complain that they can't afford to give their workers a better deal, it's not because wages are too high, but a) because too much of their revenue goes to paying inflated commercial rents, and/or b) they're greedy (pick one or both).
10. When the mainland insists on selling us more water than we need at a price much higher than other cities in China pay, it's time to look again at the economics of desalination, not just meekly accept whatever non-negotiable deal is on the table.

What does CY Leung have in common with al-Qaeda terrorists?

...apart, that is, from them being unlikeable people with rigid inflexible minds intent on forcing their own narrow ideology down everyone else's throat?

Well, neither appears to have heard of the Streisand Effect.

Je Suis Jimmy

"The Chinese side resolutely opposes terrorism in all manifestations" announced the Chinese government after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  Let's see what they have to say about this case.

New Year, New Lies

A Happy New Year to my readers!  Though I doubt if anyone in Hong Kong is too optimistic about 2015 when the government starts the new year as it ends the old one, by talking crap.

After recounting in tedious detail the events of the past few months since its last dishonest report to its Beijing overlords, the Government somehow concludes its new report by saying "It is the common aspiration of the Central Authorities, the HKSAR Government, and the people of Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage for the CE election in 2017 in Hong Kong as scheduled and strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretation and Decisions of the NPCSC".

Well, they were doing all right up to "as scheduled", but the last bit basically ignores everything that brought about the entire umbrella movement protests.  The problem is that the NPCSC's rulings on the political reform process, far from being "strictly in accordance with the Basic Law", completely override the essence of the Basic Law's provision (Article 26) that "Permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have the right to vote and the right to stand for election in accordance with law.", while its decision that the nominating committee must follow the framework of the previous Election Committee contradicts the requirement (Article 45) for it to be "broadly representative".

This is of course a Catch-22 situation.  When the NPCSC violates the Basic Law, who can one appeal to?  Er, the body entrusted with interpreting the Basic Law - the NPCSC...

Still, the report should be easy to fix.  All the government needs to do is amend "the people of Hong Kong" in the sentence above to "those members of the Hong Kong public who consider sucking up to the Chinese Communist Party to be more important than achieving genuine democracy", and everything will be hunky dory - except for everyone else in Hong Kong.

.

I'm walking backwards for Christmas

Saw this on a friend's Facebook and thought it was perfect for a Private Beach Christmas.  Wishing my loyal readers the compliments of the season and a democratic new year!

Basic Liar

Watching the news lately has become more of an ordeal than a pleasure; with various government ministers, mainland bigwigs and pro-government toadies talking total bollocks every day, there is always something to be irritated by.  But few of the many untruths emanating from our northern neighbours recently have left me so furious as Chen Zuoer's accusation that the British were cowards who surrendered meekly to the Japanese invaders who overran Hong Kong in 1941.

It may suit the Chinese Communist Party line to peddle this lie (designed, it seems, to reinforce their other lie that the Joint Declaration is China's business alone), but the historical reality is that the hopelessly outnumbered British and Commonwealth garrison fought bravely against the invaders for 16 days before, with no prospect of success, the then Hong Kong Governor reluctantly surrendered to avoid further loss of life.  A visit to the military cemeteries at Sai Wan and Stanley would show Chen the graves of many of those courageous men he falsely labels cowards.

As it happens, the father (now deceased) of a friend was one of those who fought the Japanese here before enduring more than three years of brutality as a prisoner, initially in a local PoW camp then as a slave labourer in a factory in Japan.  But apart from Hong Kong, Chen's statement is also a gross insult to all the British, Commonwealth and American servicemen who spent several years of their lives fighting against Japan.  My own father was one of them, a signaller on a Royal Navy ship which saw action in the Far East.  Without the efforts of those millions of men, it is quite probable that China today would still be under Japanese rule.

More on this story here and here.

If at first you don't succeed, keep getting it wrong

The Pro-China Morning Post had three goes at getting the right headline for its lead story yesterday, and still failed each time.

Subtle - wrong!  Veiled - wrong!  Try "bleeding obvious".

Is you is or is you ain't?

Only a few weeks ago we were being told that the Umbrella Movement was being backed by insidious foreign forces bent on undermining China.  Now China's Ambassador to Britain tells us that external support for the protests is an "illusion".  I'm so confused...

This Has Gone On Long Enough

East Taipo Evening Post, 28 November 2014: A new opinion poll shows that 85% of Hong Kong people now want the police to pull back from the streets of Hong Kong.  After eight weeks of intense police presence, most people feel their action can never achieve its goals and has gone on for far too long.

Mrs Pinkie Pong, 32, told the Post: "In the beginning I supported the police action, and even signed one of Robert Chow's dodgy petitions.  But now, even after the media tell us Nathan Road has been reopened to traffic, thousands of police are still out on the streets in Mongkok every night, blocking roads with their vans, harassing peaceful protesters, and beating up innocent passers-by.  It's time they got off the streets, returned to their barracks, and let ordinary people go about their business normally again."

State Secrets Uncovered

English Lessons for Politicians part 1

No Carrie, you've got it wrong.  When two sides exchange opinions as equals, that's called dialogue.  When one side dominates the conversation, that's called monologue.  It's when you dictate the terms of the conversation that "there is no room for dialogue".  But you're not listening, are you?

Whose Police?

Just outside the market building in Taipo, a big banner exhorts those reading it to "Support Our Police".  It appears from the two-hands logo in the corner to have been erected by the objectionable Robert Chow's Alliance for Sleaze and Hypocrisy.  And there lies the problem: if they are "our" police, who are we?  Any police force that Robert Chow (still claiming to speak for the mythical Silent Majority despite opinion polls showing support for the government shrinking to well below 50%) claims proprietorial rights over is certainly not my police force.

The Hong Kong government is trying to frame a political problem as a law and order problem, which means the police are being forced into a political role - defending an unpopular, unelected and unrepresentative government - that should not be their job.  And the recent attack on TVB and RTHK journalists by the "Support Our Police" blue-ribbon mob suggests they don't have much idea what the police should really be doing - keeping the peace.  A peace that is mostly being disturbed by those claiming to support the police.

Occupy Centrsl with Peace, Love and a Sense of Humour

Wait and See

Has someone poisoned Hemlock?

Last night and this morning I tried to post comments on Hemlock's must-read "Big Lychee" blog, only to receiuve the following message each time:

What I was going to say today, after CY Leung's latest nonsensical outburst,  is "Can someone buy CY a wheelchair as a retirement gift?  He must have run out of feet to shoot himself in by now."  That seems a useful enough suggestion to me.

Either Wordpress suddenly dislikes me, or there's something funny going on.  The odd thing is that comments from others seem to be getting through OK.  Any ideas?

Anyway, do read Hemlock's posts for the last two days.  He has a real talent for cutting through the Hong Kong government's crap and skewering their stupidity with incisive reasoning.

Poor Excuse

 

A Clash of Menus

External Forces

CY Leung tells us that "external forces" are behind the turmoil in Hong Kong.  For once, he is absolutely right about something.  Many of the mysterious masked thugs trying to block delivery of Apple Daily and attacking the protesters in Mongkok are not even Cantonese-speakers, so they're probably not Hongkongers.

Then we had the busloads of external forces who came here to join Robert Chow's ridiculous anti-democracy march.  And there are even reports that Leung and/or his senior officials are secretly visiting Shenzhen to receive covert instructions from external forces across the border.  Why don't they all keep their noses out of Hong Kong's affairs and let us decide our own future?

CY Leung fiddles while Hong Kong burns

[Apologies to The Violin Monster for the use of his photo.]

A Message from Robert Chow

Mongkok is not, so CY Leung tells us, the most genteel part of town - or the most gentile, if you believe the ATV news subtitles.

Infinite Wisdom

Despite its generally pro-Beijing editorial stance in recent years, on the whole the South China Morning Post has done a fair job of covering the Occupy movement.  However, one sentence in today's account of the clearance of the Mongkok protest site defies the laws of physics:

Since Portland Street and Nathan Road run parallel to each other, they can only intersect at infinity!

Another thing I noticed in the Post's latest online poll - 3 of the responses here are favourable to the police, and only 2 unfavourable; there is no neutral choice on offer.  And while I don't believe most cops are bad, "Poor" is a very mild description of the stupidity, incompetence and brutality we have seen from a a few of them in the past three weeks.  "Bloody awful" should have been one of the offered choices.

I suspect the results (54% negative, 46% positive) owe more to attitudes towards the protests than directly towards the police.  There are some sociopaths on the pro-government side who would be perfectly happy for them to replicate the Tiananmen massacre on Hong Kong soil (well, tarmac).  If the police cut off Joshua Wong's and Benny Tai's heads and paraded them around Central they would consider it an excellent performance.

A Simple Question

I haven't posted much here lately, partly because I'm busy and partly because many others are in a better position to comment on the Occupy situation than I am.  But I would like to know the answer to one simple question: have any of the pro-government legislators actually gone to the protest site and talked to the protesters to find out their concerns and understand why they are there, or are they solely relying on their own propaganda for information?  Sadly, I fear I know the answer already.

Hint - it's just outside the LegCo Building.  You won't need your chauffeur-driven car, just walk a few steps.  Go on, the students won't bite you.

Career Opportunity

With some sources reporting that a number of Hong Kong police officers are resigning, unhappy at what our totally discredited government is asking them to do, I thought it would be a useful public service to help update the police's recruitment poster.

Arguments from History

"If we didn't have democracy during 155 years of British rule, why do we need it now?"

Of all the specious arguments being put forward by enemies of democracy in Hong Kong to justify acceptance of China's fake political reform package, this one - which I've seen several times recently - must be the most brainless.  It is just idiotic on so many levels - not to mention ironic that the comparison with British rule is being used to bolster the arguments of those who were most opposed to it at the time.

• Britain didn't have full universal suffrage itself for half of those years - it only achieved it in 1928 when the voting qualifications for women  (some of whom first got to vote in 1918) were made the same as those for men.
• 155 years ago, nowhere else had true universal suffrage either.  Most places in the world didn't have sanitation or universal education, either - should all these omissions be perpetuated indefinitely?
• What does it matter now what Britain did or didn't allow to Hong Kong people?  We should be asking what is right for them now, not taking colonial rule as a guide to the future.
• From the 1950s onwards Britain gradually introduced local self-rule in most of its colonies, leading in most cases to full independence.  Those few which remain colonies today, such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, freely elect their own local leadership.  However, it is generally known that the Chinese government discouraged any such moves in Hong Kong.
• At one time Chinese people were not allowed to live on The Peak.  By the same logic, why should they be allowed to do so now?

Ho Tung Gardens, the first Chinese-owned house on The Peak, erected in 1927.  Photographed in the 1970s.

What remains of the site today, thanks to an uncaring government with no respect for Hong Kong's historical or architectural heritage.

• And finally, by the same token, if Hong Kong wasn't under Chinese rule for 155 years, why does it need to be now?

Could CY Leung Pass the Turing Test?

Most of my readers have probably heard of the Turing Test.  It was devised by Alan Turing, a British computing pioneer who helped Britain win World War II by breaking Germany's secret codes.  In less enlightened times, he was rewarded by his grateful country by being punished and driven to suicide for his sexual orientation.

Turing put forward what has become the standard test for artificial intelligence.  A person sits at a keyboard and conducts a conversation online, not knowing whether the entity at the other end is a real person or a computer.  Artificial intelligence will have come of age when the tester is unable to determine from the responses that a computer is in fact a machine, not a human being.

What I wonder is, given his tendency to substitute pre-programmed responses for genuine dialogue, whether Chief Executive CY Leung would be judged by the tester to be human or some form of artificial intelligence?  Perhaps a requirement to prove oneself human should be added to the requirements for nomination as a CE candidate?

Silence of the Damned

Most of the usual pro-government loudmouths are keeping unusually quiet at the moment about the current events in Hong Kong, but not Robert Chow, self-appointed (and self-inflated) spokesman of those with nothing to say.  Chow popped up on television yesterday asking the Occupy Central protesters to end their occupation of the streets soon so "ordinary citizens" could go about their business.  What does he think the thousands of protesters (and hundreds of thousands likely to join them over the holiday tomorrow) are - little green aliens from the planet Twinkletoes?  They are ordinary citizens of Hong Kong - unlike the busloads of mainlanders Chow imported to boost the numbers on his anti-Occupy march last month.

To claim, as Chow does, to speak for the "silent majority" relies on two assumptions, both false: 1) that those who do not speak out all agree with you; and 2) that they want you to speak on their behalf.  It takes a remarkably big ego and small brain to believe both of these.

A Reader, Not a Leader

CY Leung's TV address to the Hong Kong people yesterday:

Look briefly at camera.
Blah Blah Blah.
Look down at Beijing-provided script.
Blah Blah Blah.
Blah Blah Blah.
Blah Blah Blah.
Look briefly at camera.
Blah Blah Blah.
Look down at Beijing-provided script.
Blah Blah Blah.
Blah Blah Blah.
Blah Blah Blah.
Look briefly at camera.
Blah Blah Blah.
Look down at Beijing-provided script.
Blah Blah Blah.
Blah Blah Blah.
Blah Blah Blah.

...and so on.  All delivered in that infuriating flat robotic monotone which he probably thinks indicates calm assurance but which actually signifies a lack of passion and emotional engagement.  The man has no personal warmth whatsoever.  And at a time of crisis, people want a leader who talks to them directly from the heart, not just a zombie reading a prepared statement which he has clearly not even looked at in advance.

As for the content of both his public appearances yesterday, it was just more reading from the same tired script.  "Beijing won't change its mind".  "Occupy Central is illegal" (we know that - what part of "civil disobedience" doesn't he understand?)  "Government won't tolerate illegal activities".  "Strictly in accordance with the Basic Law" (untrue, but that's for another post).  And Blah Blah Blah.

Clearly Leung - like his two predecessors - totally lacks imagination.  He looks increasingly like an actor who has learned his lines thoroughly but then finds himself on stage with someone like Spike Milligan or Robin Williams, doggedly trying to stick to the script while they improvise entire new plotlines all around him.

At this point, there are only two useful things that Leung could say to the Hong Kong public.  The first is "I misrepresented Hong Kong's views to the NPCSC and helped create this mess we're in.  I'm sorry."  I doubt he will do this, but there are still one or two of his government ministers who have a little integrity left - I'm hoping they will break ranks, admit they got it wrong, and say they don't want to be part of this sorry show any more.

The second is "I resign".


Video - I couldn't find a video of his second speech yesterday, which was in Chinese, but here's the earlier one in English where he's also obviously reading woodenly from his script.  It's hard to see why he needs one when he's repeated all these lies and half-truths so many times before.  Perhaps his handlers at the Liaison Office are scared he may stray off-message if they don't put the exact words into his mouth.

They've got the guns, but we've got the numbers

Whoever is in charge of the police operation at Admiralty today appears to be a complete idiot (or taking orders from a complete idiot, probably Police Commissioner Andy Tsang, or even his boss CY Leung) .  Not content with already using pepper spray and tear gas to escalate a mild protest into a riot, they have now threatened to open fire on the crowd with live bullets.  I can think of nothing more certain to provoke the Hong Kong people into a mass eruption of anger against the government which would make the Article 23 demonstrations look like a church picnic by comparison.  I also suspect many of the police would feel very uneasy at being part of it.

Either the government has no idea of the level of resentment it has built up in Hong Kong, or they are already determined to replicate the Tiananmen Massacre on Hong Kong soil.  Either way the future doesn't look good.  This is not the Hong Kong any of us wants.

CY Leung Reacts to Occupy Central

There is much that could be said about Occupy Central and the events of the past few days.  All I will say here for now is that I want to live in a Hong Kong where the police force protects ordinary citizens from criminals, not one where gas-mask-wearing shield-carrying riot police protect a clueless and unelected government from the people.

The Great Pretender

Former Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung, now Deputy Director of the Basic Law Committee, said a couple of days ago that "People wish to have universal suffrage in 2017, and they should not be deprived of their chance".

No argument with that, but then she turned stupid: "When you label it as true or false universal suffrage I think it's meaningless.  I mean you can't say that just because it's not the same as what I want and [sic] therefore it's not true universal suffrage".

I don't believe for one moment that Elsie Leung is too simple-minded to understand the difference between an election allowing voters to select from a range of candidates representing a wide spectrum of political viewpoints, and one where the choice is between 2 or 3 identikit candidates all effectively handpicked by the Chinese Communist Party.  In other words, she is pretending not to understand the difference with the intention of reducing a serious divergence on political principle to a mere question of personal preference, like the choice between Pepsi and Coke.

Leung is playing the fool for political advantage, and she wants you to be fooled too.  Don't be.

A Child's Guide to Hong Kong CE Elections

News of the Century

10 September 2014

Two New Telephones Go On Sale Today!

One of those eagerly awaiting the new devices, Mr Ned Ludd, said: "I have been waiting for this even longer than Hong Kong has been waiting for real democracy".

Special Feature Pages 1-93.

Today's other news:

• Bubonic plague infects everyone in Manhattan
• Entire North Polar icecap melts overnight - tsunamis kill millions
• Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ride through Tin Shui Wai

-- all on Page 94.

Naughty Phone Calls

Under the pretence of "protecting the young", the repellent Alliance for Sleaze and Hypocrisy has set up a hotline which mean-spirited individuals can call to grass on students who join the coming class boycott in support of genuine universal suffrage.

Of course\, it would also be possible for concerned individuals to call the number anonymously and tell the unlovely Alliance exactly what they think of them compiling (probably illegally) lists of young people engaged in a lawful protest.  After all, the Alliance's stated aim is to object to illegal means of pursuing democracy, and there is nothing illegal about the proposed action.  But you wouldn't do anything so naughty, now would you?

Courtesy of Hong Wrong, which has more on this.

It has only just occurred to me that Alliance head Robert Chow may have ambitions to become the next Chief Executive.  No one could suck up to Beijing so assiduously without hoping for something in return.  From positioning his previous organisation, the dishonestly-titled Silent Majority, as some sort of independent voice of the people, he has gone to acting like a Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution in a matter of weeks.  Creepy.

Selective History Lesson

Outburst of the Day

Much as I would like to come up with long analytical pieces every morning demonstrating my deep insight into Hong Kong's precarious political situation, I don't often have the time - or the deep insight, come to that.  (How does Hemlock manage it?)  And I don't want this blog to become simply a Twitter-like stream of short splutters of outrage.  However, I will say that I find watching the news these days a painful experience - the main entertainment it offers is totting up the number of lies being paraded by the government and its allies:

• There is still time to achieve consensus on political reform - LIE!  Unless you define "consensus" Beijing-style as shutting up and doing what you're told.  The door has been firmly slammed on any other option.
• The 2017 vote will be "real democracy" - LIE!  Does anyone believe there will be any real choice between the candidates on offer?  Or that any of them will stand up for Hong Kong's interests when they conflict with those of Beijing?
• We must not miss this golden opportunity to progress further towards democracy - LIE!  Can anyone explain to me how being able to vote freely for a candidate you don't want is any improvement on being unable to vote for one you do want?  There is no progress when the net effect is the same - no chance of being able to choose even a half-decent leader.  Better to retain the current system, so at least the least objectionable of Beijing's preferred 2 or 3 yes-men will not have the chance to falsely claim any sort of public mandate.

OK, that's today's splutter.  Thank you for your attention to this matter, as Hong Kong people like to write.

One Way Traffic

Before 1997, there was a slew of books predicting that the advent of Chinese rule would inevitably mean the death of Hong Kong.  For several years, I believed that they were wrong.  I would tell friends overseas who asked how life here had changed that the Chinese government had interfered far less than we all feared, and that by and large Hong Kong life went on much as before.

It is now apparent that these perceptions arose from a false sense of security.  In reality, Hong Kong has been in the position of a woman forced into an unwanted arranged marriage whose new husband chooses not to consummate it immediately - but eventually she is bound to get well and truly screwed.  And now we are.

Among the many betrayers of Hong Kong who have contributed to the dire situation we are in, one name stands out.  Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai CBE - prominent among the sudden patriots I wrote about yesterday - is Hong Kong's only member (one can hardly call her a representative, as she only represents herself) of the NPC Standing Committee that laid down the disastrous fake democracy blueprint delivered yesterday.  As such, she bears a special responsibility for its decision.

The Independent newspaper once asked "What is it about Rita Fan that makes Hong Kong hate her so?"  Well, one obvious reason is that she likes to lecture Hong Kong people on why they are all wrong about Beijing, and boast of her own unique insight into the Central Government's thinking.  A few days ago she warned Hong Kong people not to pressurise Beijing (as if a mouse could apply much pressure to an elephant!), and after yesterday's announcement she reinforced the message:

"If we want something done we have to persuade them in a manner that they can understand.  We should never persuade people in a manner that they feel unhappy about, that they feel they are being pressurised."

OK, so let us assume for a moment that Fan is right.  Since she claims to know how to persuade Beijing in a manner that it can understand, how has she used this knowledge to make them realise that the pseudo-democracy it proposes for Hong Kong can only exacerbate unrest, deepen division, and ultimately destroy the very "stability and prosperity of Hong Kong" to which the Beijing leadership so often claims to be committed?  And has she advised Beijing not to let Hong Kong people feel that they are being pressurised?

Well, nothing at all, and no, respectively.  Fan did not achieve the power and influence she so clearly enjoys by speaking uncomfortable truths to the powerful.  She will tell Beijing nothing about Hong Kong that it does not wish to hear.  And the narrative - or myth - Beijing prefers, and may even fool itself into believing, is of a contented and united populace loyally devoted to the motherland and grateful to the all-powerful Chinese Communist Party for the gifts it so munificently bestows on them, spoiled only by a negligible handful of dissident troublemakers stirring up disagreement.

Fan is not of course the only politician peddling this one-way traffic - passing down Beijing's imperious edicts to Hong Kong, while failing to help the Central Government understand the SAR's needs and concerns.  With a few honourable exceptions, most government ministers and the DAB's leaders are all guilty of the same thing.  But as Hong Kong's only member of the NPC Standing Committee, Fan was in a uniquely privileged position last week to make a real difference to Hong Kong's future.  By going along with a decision that will ensure future CEs continue to speak for the Central Government rather than representing the people of Hong Kong, she has sadly abused that privilege.

As the winter of our discontent deepens, what adds insult to injury is that not only has Fan welcomed the approaching iceberg, but she and fellow Beijing toady Lau Siu-kai, former head of the Central Policy Unit, have even blamed us - the Hong Kong people - for steering the ship into it.  According to them Beijing has taken a hard line against the democrats in Hong Kong, as Lau puts it, "simply because of the the pressure they apply on Beijing".  Yeah, sure - and without that we would surely be living in paradise...

PS - it's hard to believe when you look at her now, but Rita Fan was quite a beauty when she was young.