Sunday, July 02, 2006
I don't know how many of you have asked the question, or been asked the question of whether Hong Kong has changed after 1997. Well, that's a tough one. Yes and no. No if you don't give a schitte or you're reading USA Today that makes such a big fuss about one more soldier getting killed in Iraqiland everyday. International news section is painstickingly small and irrelevant. You want to know what’s irrelevant? Read SCMP, the paper is a poorly managed grocery store (let alone the language, good luck with learning Engrish from SCMP).
First thing China did in 1997, was that they changed the voting system in the Legislative Council, reducing the power of making changes to ordinances. It was changed from overall-majority to grouped-majority. Smart move, and I bet 90% of the Hong Kongers didn't know. And that's the whole PRC strategy, nobody asked, nobody cared, nobody knew. A stable bumpless ride, whoops I'm pregnant and who's the father?
If you want to know what's changed in Hong Kong after 1997, look at two things.
A. read the paper headlines today. 5 categories.
1. communist papers that don't sell at all, making loss every year without consequence as the money comes from some “influential” people at the back. that only reports on how Hong Kongers celebrated July1st since the economy is going up, society is "stable" and everybody love(d) Donald T (DaGongBao, WenHuiBao etc)
2. strategically leftist papers that play with numbers and apathic language to tell their new Communist shareholders that HK don't give schitte about universal suffrage, that everybody at the demo were uneducated, stupid, irrational, falungong-possessed, pro-taiwan-independence, and blaspheming the "status quo". Whereas an average Honkie is happy sitting with their AC at home watching TV: entertaining July1st politically-correct celebration special. (Oriental Daily, The Sun)
3. extreme rightist paper (singular: apple daily is the sole survior) that reports on how angry everybody was at the Demo for universal-suffrage, how it was a "success" a few years ago "forcing" Tung Chee-hwa out of the office and the fire must burn on
4. midline papers that's more balanced with their report, cut the page exactly in half and report on both sides, quoted all numbers from all parties (MingPao, XinBao)
5. cowardy papers that don't tell you nothing, downplayed and whitewashed all the goo from yesterday, in case they get pressured by "influential" people (SingTao daily etc). ah, everybody loves worldcup
B. Read the government(s) statements (HKSAR Government and Central Government)
Here's the official statement from SAR Government yesterday. "Although the constitutional reform package, which represented a step forward towards universal suffrage, put forth by the Government last year was not passed by the Legislative Council, we remain fully committed and determined to promoting democratic development in accordance with the Basic Law, and attaining the ultimate aim of universal suffrage in the light of the actual situation in Hong Kong. This is the Basic Law's requirement. It also represents the common aspirations, which is shared by the Central Authorities, the Government and the public. The Government has been exploring actively possible models for implementing universal suffrage for selecting the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council, and plans to draw conclusions early next year. The Government will make public the report, reflect the conclusions to the Central Authorities, and then commence the next stage of work.”
Read the first sentence of the statement again.
The government believes in its own lies. The reform package was a step to wonderland, a wonder-what-the-hell-happened-last-night-land. It was pushed by few people desperately before their term so that they could be promoted, it was pushed through against all odds: debate at the legco and a pitifully short public review. Universal suffrage claimed by the government referred to the district council (which is pretty useless), whereas the appointment system was not changed. What we have constantly been asking was to have a Chief Executive of our own, thats the whole point of not staying under the british colonial rule. If you read USA Today, you'll get the first statement and you'll be in wonderland.
Donald kept his mouth shut for the whole day, why? He's only a puppet from central government, and he's not allowed to speak what he really thinks. "High autonomy guaranteed by Basic Law" my a$$.
Statements of the PRC government? Oh they're not into official statements, they're into unofficial statements made by "influential" people, and when these rednecked S.O.B. talk, they attack personally, because they're cannot be articulative otherwise and they don't know enough about the Law. (politically uneducated) This tells you a lot about Chinese politics, that it's about the person not about the situation. And this mentality is corrupting Hong Kong today.
The central government doesn't follow the Basic Law which was co-drafted by themselves. Very Chinese indeed. It's about the person, I get to pick the leader because I know his daddy, I know his daddy because he's on the same board as my daddy's mom. I pick his son today because his daddy covered my auntie's a$$. Happy family.
The July1st march that I was in wasn't entirely white either. Falungong distributing brochures in boxes air-mailed from Taiwan, Anson Chan with an intention that nobody knows but her, Democrats that are only slightly more educated than communists. I agreed with the banner however, and that should be the intention prima.
Just because a doctor cannot heal himself doesn't mean that Medicine is disproved
trapped in the maze of time..12:16 AM