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
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS