Milking things for all they’re worth

Separation-of-Powers-Gate, or Zhang-Gate for short, continues to send shockwaves through Hong Kong.

Stan-Barristers-raise

To recap: China’s top man in the city, Zhang Xiaoming, announces that separation of powers does not apply there, and that the Chief Executive occupies an elevated position above all Stan-Zhang-Setsthree branches of government. This provokes a predictable backlash from lawyers and opposition politicians. Now, just as predictably, local officials and pro-Beijing figures scramble to ‘explain’ that Zhang did not mean what he said, and Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen pleads with detractors not to quote the remarks out of context or exaggerate them.

This is a bit rich. For the last year and half, the Liaison Office, Communist-run media, obedient officials and slimy shoe-shiners have been quoting out of context and exaggerating anything that comes their way in order to smear the opposition. The elaborate campaign of lies that Occupy Central ‘damaged’ Hong Kong’s economy and reputation. The phony public opinion polls and signature campaigns. The allegations of links between pro-democrats like Benny Tai or Jimmy Lai and the CIA, and of sleazy handling of donations by academic Johannes Chan. And all the rest. It’s hard to feel sympathy for Rimsky on his knees begging pro-dems not to milk this latest Communist-foot-in-frothing-mouth episode for all it’s worth.

With perfect timing, the Hong Kong Police are caught doing a cover-up (‘rewrite’ in quotes of coyness in the South China Morning Post) of history in its website’s record of the events of 1967. (Details and a before-and-after comparison of the text here.)

MP-Police67

The basic history is well known: local Communist elements commited bombings and other deadly acts of terror in the city. The background tends to be downplayed a bit: labour unrest; and the Cultural Revolution, which convinced local leftists to fear persecution for not using violence against the colonial regime. The outcome: an opportunity for that regime to milk Communist screw-ups on a scale we can only dream of today. Thus the loyalty and bravery of the police and population in the face of the Communist threat passed into Hong Kong folklore.

The Hong Kong Police website now omits any mention of Communists, giving the impression that ‘misplaced nationalism’ triggered the mayhem that left over 50 dead. Creepy – but in a way you’re surprised the cops hadn’t fixed this patriotically inconvenient wep page already. Maybe Zhang Xiaoming had given them a call. Of course, side-by-side comparisons of the pre- and post-correction texts are now going to be online everywhere.

But not creepy enough for the Standard, which offers all you need know about the feng-shui of corpse-removal. We learn the difference between between a good-fortune ‘dry’ corpse and the ‘wet’ sort (which is ‘less lucky’, which I presume means the departed is more inclined to come back and haunt you). Plus how to tell parents’ bones apart. It concludes with a mysterious, almost chilling, request from resident geomancer Kerby Kuek for Facebook ‘likes’…

Stan-InsideStories

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Milking things for all they’re worth

  1. Cunning Linguist says:

    someone should read Article 22 of the Basic Law to the commie moron
    Article 22
    No department of the Central People’s Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.
    If there is a need for departments of the Central Government, or for provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government to set up offices in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, they must obtain the consent of the government of the Region and the approval of the Central People’s
    Government.
    All offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the personnel of these offices shall abide by the laws of the Region.
    YES that mean you , commie bastard

  2. PD says:

    It’s all a big misunderstanding, according to Rita: http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1211344-20150914.htm. People like us couldn’t possibly comprehend what Zhang meant to say.

  3. reductio says:

    @PD

    Thanks for the link.

    This caught my eye: “Ms Fan said Mr Zhang was only describing the constitutional position of the Chief Executive using his own mainland jargon.” So the next time Mr Zhang says something like “Suck my candy pole, western-infected running dogs. Beijing can do what the #@%k it likes down here, so get used to it a#$^oles,” we can relax knowing that it is a bit of hieratic discourse and not to be taken literally.

  4. Cassowary says:

    Well that’s their modus operandi, isn’t it? They’re acting like one of those old school crooked Tsim Sha Tsui electronics salesmen. They sold us what we’d been told was a digital camera but now they’re telling us that it’s actually a toaster, and when we dispute that, they say we don’t understand the manual.

  5. stinky foot says:

    A bit off topic, but not by much. The heralded new ‘Independent Press’ the HKFP, has run an article that is a travesty and a sophistic rewriting of history. It purports to tell a story how HK refused and mistreated refugees fleeing from the mainland.

    Lots of wonderful pictures but not dated. In fact the conflation from the ‘ so-called’ 1940s , 50s, 60s is risible. No historical context, no idea about Mao’s releasing people to come to HK. No knowledge about the border and the British response to the release of these people to HK stressing all public services ( having recovered by the mass influx of people after the war and increased after 1949). I am appalled.

    Whomever wrote this article, and the HKFP, is not just an idiot but has willing and enabling running dogs to publish this travesty of fact and history.

  6. Scotty Dotty says:

    Piercing post today. Hemmers nails Rimsky in one!

    Quick detour down memory lane… up to the Communist riots of 67, the Hong Kong Police were just that. Only after squashing the Communists did they get the “ROYAL Hong Kong Police” prefix.

    As to the changes on the police website to diminish Communist failures in 1967, it’s difficult to see a major, police-wide conspiracy. These days there isn’t a single “Hong Kong Police Force” anymore; just a network of power brokers with private tentacles to whoever they can shoeshine and slime with up north. The website revisionists are merely the Force’s Communications Sorts who have their endless guanxi visits up north. Last time they were there some sleazeball in Peking will have noted they should “harmonise and cooperate their public image for China national feelings blah blah”. Voila, independent of the Commissioner, the police’s Chief Toady for Communications will have made the website changes.

    They will have already sent a grovelling note to Peking – “look at me, my tongue’s THAT far up your arse” – so don’t expect the website to ever get back to historical fact. Another fine part of pre-97 Hong Kong lost for ever…

  7. Joe Blow says:

    @stinky foot: well said.

  8. Mike says:

    Can’t wait to see people getting photoshoped from pictures.

  9. Laguna Lurker says:

    @stinky foot: Your observations are valid. Though I agree that HK needs an outspoken and balanced press, I have grave doubts about the journalistic integrity of HKFP. Mr. Grundy’s earlier efforts, in the form of HongWrong.com, were a concerted effort to discredit just about everything about Hong Kong, as the title of the e-corpse indicates. Now that he has acquired substantial financial backing from his political fellow travellers, HongWrong has been abandoned like a spurned lover. It would be interesting, if at all possible, to discover who his financiers are.

    Every HKFP story is followed by a “Comments” section, but there are never any comments. Indeed it is impossible to discover any means to make a comment. What kind of “free press” is that? I have sent e-mails to the correspondence address provided and they have failed to be delivered.

  10. Peter says:

    I had no problems making comments on the hk free press. I just needed a Facebook account.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *