The week starts with a fairly average Hong Kong Chief Executive ‘election’ mouth-froth. Carrie Lam, the Chinese Communist Party’s apparent pick for the job, says she decided to take part because it would be a disaster if there was no-one Beijing trusted on the ballot. Cue widespread outrage, as this is interpreted as a slur against rival John Tsang, whose American upbringing, past service to last colonial Governor Chris Patten and perceived disloyalty to current CE CY Leung are presumed to count against him.
In a genuine democratic election, it would be acceptable and obvious to attack a rival candidate for being somehow unsuitable for office. The uproar in this case is a mark of how perverse the quasi-election is. (Perhaps inadvertently, the South China Morning Post gets a better angle by stressing Carrie’s legitimacy problem if John Tsang has higher opinion-poll ratings. It’s worth mentioning here that opinion polls in this rigged system tend to beg the question of which candidate respondents think Beijing will pick, not which one they personally prefer.)
Despite all the whining, Carrie is simply telling the truth: Beijing choses the winner, and post-1997 experience shows that the Communist Party places sycophancy above competence – absolutely and always. The lady’s mendacity is in suggesting that she entered the ‘race’ for fear of what would happen without her on the ballot. Beijing told her to offer herself, and she obeyed. If she had not, the Chinese officials would have prodded another high-sycophancy/low-competence stooge into the role. The prospects of ornamental rivals like John Tsang would be unaffected.
Carrie had told an audience of insiders that God advised her to run/‘run’. Sadly, the Almighty neglected to help her out on such basics as: ensuring her household supply of toilet rolls; attending the correct funeral home out of a citywide choice of two; and knowing how to use an Octopus Card on the MTR. We are told she is an enormously capable administrator, yet these simple life skills are beyond her.
Her pro-democracy and radical detractors are now faced with a terrible choice. They will plan to taunt her for years to come with symbols, props, memes and other cruel and vicious reminders of her shortcomings. With CY, it was his inability to win more than a dismal 689 votes in a rigged poll of 1,200 ‘voters’. With Carrie, it could be something inspired by toilet paper (how can you go wrong/where do you start?), or it could draw on her ignorance of public transport and stored-value cards, and presumably day-to-day life for humankind in general. And she may yet struggle to reach 800 votes in the fake election.
Opposition activists seeking ideas for distasteful imagery with possible toilet-paper subtexts could do worse than check out today’s double-page ad in the middle of the SCMP, which invites us to view a grubby item of men’s underwear and consequently feel compelled to rush out and buy Calvin Klein products…
The irony here is that Carrie is presenting herself as “closer to the grassroots” than her rivals, yet her unfamiliarity with the most basic elements of everyday life in Hong Kong suggests that she wouldn’t recognise a grassroot if it was growing right under her feet.
You have to wonder whether Carrie of Arc, prone to weeping when she didn’t come top of the class, has any idea of the tears ahead when she tops this (rigged) test ? Doesn’t Mathematician Husband take her aside and say “I’ve done the sums and 7.3 million people are going to hate your guts and there is no known algorithm which allows for legitimacy and the CCP to co-exist .” Perhaps it’s better to retire to Cambridge, on her enormous pension complete with no offset mechanism, and run for the Parish Council lest mankind be deprived of her divine instruction to lead ?
I’d have thought the Calvin Klein ad would’ve been more appropriate in a Japanese newspaper. Happy Burusera Day!
Question is, who will be the gallant lad that throws his overcoat onto the puddle in front of the Alphard door for the Lamb Curry Princess to step on so her Jimmy Choos don’t get soiled?
The bungling serves to distract from the other end of her unfamiliarity, what it means to not have “friends” throwing money and opening doors. Having never paid for a meal in 30+ years, does she know how to handle cash or to wait for a waitress to bring back the credit card? At least she doesn’t have to worry about illegal structures on her house, though perhaps her “retirement” house in China is in it’s totality an illegal structure(in it’s funding).
As if she was ever going to retire in China. She certainly spend a lot of time in Beijing post, as consultant to British firms and collecting delayed benefits for projects dished out from the administration.
Chinese Netizen
Like the sentiment, but doubt it’s Jimmy Choos – a bit to sexy for CL – more likely St John Chanel a like suits and sensible flat court shoes that HK matrons of a certain age and level of wealth like. JCs are more Melania Trump.
Here at the High Court we all know what you should know.
It’s the grandees and civil servants what rules Hong Kong, not a Chief Executive or even Peking.
Flats for the masses, old age pensions, clean air – if David Li and all the rest says no, it means NO. And if it can’t be thought up by and ruled by the Civil Service, it never gets off the ground.
When Carrie stops being a civil servant, she becomes a nobody. So why do you think becoming a nobody all that important?
I think Curry Lamb is trying to appeal to the Election Committee members who are partial to receiving golden showers, Cleveland steamers, etc…
I think the saddest thing of all is that anyone’s looking at John Tsang as the better alternative. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.