Does he trust Hong Kong?
When Time asked “Can Hong Kong trust this man". My first thought was actually, “does this man trust Hong Kong?"
The old Left in China like this saying, “the Imperial West’s desire of destroying us will never die". Therefore, from every points of view, they usually tried to explore what the Western media did in any reports or interviews. So when Fortune’s made their “Hong Kong is dead" cover, they were enraged, asserting that “what Westerners can do, Chinese people can do as well".
This arrogant cum sense of inferior version of can-do-ism can be seen in an interview of another teasing cover of Time magazine, “Can Hong Kong trust this man" with SACE in the background. Your blogger here did not subscribe Time magazine and cannot read the true coverage. However, in the free Q&A session, readers would find easily that the “divisive" (described by Time) SACE is indeed the kind of old Left you may find across the Shumchun River.
The most obvious example could be seen here:
You talk about building a community, but surely Hong Kong already has a sense of community?
Unlike other British colonies — ex-colonies — we did not become a new nation. And therefore there wasn’t a new national identity. There wasn’t a new citizenship. But I think Hong Kong needs to pull everyone together so that we do have this community spirit and that we share in a common fate, a common destiny. (Link)
SACE’s answer is simply misleading is that the two so-called missing “new" “ships" are actually there. The truth is just that they are not in their version. While he proposed a sense of “common destiny" or “fate" with China, Hong Kong people does has a sense of themselves such common-ness reflected in the march for the death of Li Wangyang and the June Fourth memorial assembly in the Victoria Park.
With this line of thought, SACE, like the Old Left, actually does not accept any so-called Western values. Even being chosen by election, he should rather be described as doing it in the early Chinese Communist conspiratorial way. This implies that anything like Law or Press are only tools to “manage" the public order. Freedom of Press and Rule of Law, for them, are usually hindrance to the “development" of the city. This can be shown by their recognition of Singaporean style for their being “strong". However, they simply ignore how the Singaporean government respect the professionals and intellectuals for their evidence-based or policy making. Instead of knowledge, old Left like SACE usually place politics first.
If Hong Kong is still famous and special because of her practice of rule of law and freedom of speech in Greater China, then the problem with SACE and co is that it is simply false. For them, the continuing “success" is built on the gratitude of Beijing allowing more and more benefit to Hong Kong.
“If we were a country, which we are not, China would be the single most important element in our foreign policy architecture. It would be even more important than Malaysia is to Singapore."
The ungovernable Hong Kong is built on the greed of Hong Kong people. He is really the bridge, yet, that pointing to the integration with Greater China. With these many contradictions, before doubting if Hong Kong people can trust him, we should rather bother with the question, “does he trust Hong Kong?"
Get back to the question: can Hong Kong trust this man? Answer, in the beginning they do, but now, they cannot.
When he was first elected, voices were that he was believed to be a cleaner one compared with Henry Tang, with less connection with the Hong Kong version of Zaibatsus and an apartment with simpler structure. However, it turned out that his connection is not to the rich but to the north. His apartment now looks as complicated as the Cabin in the Wood.
His old Left image is fortified by his way to push his restructure plan. Approaching to the end of the LegCo meeting schedule, he demanded a change of agenda in less than 24 hours before the meeting. Before the meeting, he asserted his determinism by claiming that there would be no “Plan B" or the people would suffer by the stop of government service. However, with the failure of changing the agenda, he said he would be “humble" again.
His image was further worsened by the choice of his team. A human resources expert from the commercial sector became the head of Education; an culture-ignorant banker-turn-official would become the head of the may-be-forming Culture Bureau instead of a well-connected cultural NGO leader. The new chief auditor of the government had involved in a fraud case and the notorious Police Commissioner who is also a infamous hardliner to protesters also kept his post safely. And not forget the inclusion of Ms. Fanny Law to the Executive Council, who promised she would surely retire after July. Yesterday, she said she just promised not to service in the “Government". New textbook surely needed.
In the interview, he mentioned his eagerness to protect freedom of press and build a common sense. While writing this article, the police had already kept one reporter for his “too-loud" question on Hong Kong’s want to ratify June Fourth incident. They had also kept an HKASPDMC (支聯會) truck twice already. And let us check the calendar, today is only 30th of June. He has done enough while he is NOT officially the CE yet.
So, what is the reason to trust? I have posted four, give me one to convince me at least.
Who is he?
He just saw this
從 Instagram 擷取圖片時發生錯誤。幾分鐘後會自動再試一次。