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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which