July 1 was the fourth anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to China. Beijing did not send any leaders to the celebrations, perhaps because Hong Kong's political, economic and social chaos have made Beijing lose interest in Hong Kong. But Tung Chee-hwa (董建華), Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, did manage to create an uproar among Hong Kongers, causing them to view the "old muddlehead" with new eyes.
Since 1997, Tung has issued various Bauhinia medals to individuals on July 1 every year for their meritorious service to the community. The highest among those honors is the Grand Bauhinia Medal. Recipients in 1997 included the most famous of Hong Kong's "patriots," such as Ann Tse-kai (
This year, the most controversial awardee was a man by the name of Yeung Kwong (楊光), who at 75 is a precious, newly unearthed historical relic. Younger Hong Kongers will not be familiar with Yeung, but 35 years ago he was the man of the hour. At that time, echoing the unprecedented Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution (文化大革命), Hong Kong's left-wingers launched a series of disturbances, their support base rooted in the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU, 工聯會). Yeung was president of the FTU at the time, and became the director of the "struggle committee" (鬥委會) behind all the disturbances.
During the disturbances, which occurred between May and October of 1967, large posters denouncing British imperialism were put up at the gate of the Hong Kong Government House. Bombs were also planted all over the city, creating a wave of terror. Though on the surface it appeared as if the leftists claimed to be launching an "anti-British" uprising under the banner of "nationalism," the majority of their victims were Chinese. True, bombs carried the written message "Compatriots stay back," but then again, bombs don't have eyes.
According to statistics, between 5,000 and 8,000 bombs, either real or fake, were planted around the city. In all, about 50 people died (including 11 thugs), and over 800 people were injured. Lam Bun (林彬), a well-known presenter on Hong Kong Commercial Radio, frequently received threatening letters because of the sarcastic manner in which he lashed out at the disturbances caused by these "patriots." Finally, on Aug. 24, as Lam was leaving his home to go to work, a revolutionary thug threw a gasoline bomb into Lam's car, burning him to death.
Through a collection drive launched by citizens all over Hong Kong, and with assistance by prominent businessman Ho Cho-chee (
This year, by conferring a medal to Yeung, Tung has managed to rub salt into painful wounds that the widow had kept concealed for 34 years. She was shocked and frightened to receive a reporter's phone call asking for an interview. I hope that no more journalists ever bother her again.
Lam's death -- and the general turmoil caused by the "struggle committee" -- intensified anti-communist sentiment among residents, giving rise to an extremely contemptuous attitude toward "leftists." Graduates from leftist schools were called "Red Guards" and had difficulty finding jobs. Good at struggle but lacking in skills, many of these students had to settle for low-paying salaries at Beijing-invested organizations, and gradually turned against Hong Kong society.
Nowadays, at the city forum sponsored by Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK,
According to the recollections of those who led the 1967 riots, leftist thinking was not the only reason for launching the riots. Another significant factor was that high-ranking officials at the Xinhua News Agency (
After the Cultural Revolution, Beijing rejected the merits of the Hong Kong riots. A replacement was found for Xinhua's head Liang Weilin (
Tung Chee-hwa's most recent move -- expressing official approval of Yeung's efforts and achievements during the "red era" -- has caused the specter of the Cultural Revolution to loom above Hong Kong once again, but the issue has also invited intense criticism from both Hong Kong's people and the media. Except for party newspapers and "patriotic" camps -- especially those who participated in the disturbances under Yeung and now comprise the new dynasty of Chinese officials in Hong Kong -- the media has come out almost entirely against Tung, putting the chief administrator in a completely awkward position.
Some say that Tung's actions were calculated to rein in the leftist vote, while others say that it was just plain ineptitude. Both of these opinions miss the point. Because Chinese President Jiang Zemin (
Look again at Tung's gradually stepped-up attack on Falun Gong, in which he floated certain statements in the media as preparation for later actions. During this year's ceremonies, Tung played a kind of equalizing game by also giving a comparatively smaller medal to Yeung's adversary, Ho Cho-chee. Tung is far from being inept -- what better gift for the Communist Party's 80th anniversary celebrations.
In order to celebrate its founding, the Chinese Communist Party early on gave the order that no articles criticizing Mao Zedong (
What is the CCP's attitude toward Tung's great performance? First, Beijing won't interfere in Hong Kong's high-level autonomy. Second, even though Beijing rejects the Cultural Revolution, Hong Kong can completely approve of it -- it's "one country, two systems" in the flesh.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Scudder Smith
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS