Hong Kong’s Chief Executive-to-be Carrie Lam goes to the nation’s capital and receives Chairman Xi Jinping’s finest inanity-as-praise treatment…
He sounds like a palm-reader in a rush to see his next client: “You are capable of controlling complicated situations, but beware of becoming over-confident, especially towards the end of the sixth moon.”
It is tempting to think that the South China Morning Post gets inadvertently brutal halfway through the report, and we should have been reading something more glowing…
However, the paper is probably conveying the correct subliminal message: We wish you to perceive that we consider your disturbingly semi-alien city unappreciative, loathsome and of little consequence – what’s your name again?
“You have high recognition in society” and DESPITE that and low popularity numbers, we chose you…
With praise like that she’s doomed. Or we are.
Short but sweet.
“fitted the central government’s criteria for the job” – and stuff Hong Kong people’s criteria.
Why do you nearly always follow the established news agenda? It’s very tedious of you. You are on the Internet. You can write about other things than idiotic civil servants meeting pasty flabby waxworks Fu Manchus in Peking. Go on. Reinvent yourself.
OUR BON MOT OF THE DAY: The Government annuity scheme does as much for the abolition of old age poverty as lethal injection does for the abolition of capital punishment.
I have yet to meet 1 person who likes her. Maybe I am moving in the wrong circles.
“…sat beaming at him throughout.”, eh? I bet she did. “Down there”, she must have been as moist as a Victoria sponge. Hope she packed and extra pair of lisle stockings.
Fabulous “bon mot” from Lonesome George. Trouble is, it’s irredeemably leaden, not in the least “bon”, and contains too many “mots”.
Come on, Georgie, who do you think you’re kidding? As any fule kno, “bons mots” are witty, spontaneous sallies, not the laboured result of a night lashed to the pan in Stanley clutching a jar of senna pods and the “Bob Monkhouse Joke Book”.
My “bon mot” to you, me old china: “Put a sock in it”.
Lonesome George (@ Mr. Wu) – reinvent yourself; just for one day, try not to be a twat.
Possibly only the second or third time I’ve ever commented here.
But that man from Stanley is becoming increasingly tiresome.
Would someone please take him to one side and explain that if we want to know what he thinks (about anything at all) we will go to ntscmp.
I click on Hemlock everyday to read what he has to say, together with the generally interesting comments. Not to read a daily dose of vituperation from Stanley.
Has no one noticed the uncanny similarity between the narcissistic behaviour of George Adams and that of Donald Trump? Put simply, he is a pain in the arse. Anyone care to join me in a plea to Hemlock to block him from this platform?
@Laguna Lurker: Yes. Seconded
If he doesn’t like the content, why continue to read it and make snide comments? Presumably to be irritating and thus draw attention to himself? Probably gets a kick from people rising to the bait.
Several people moan about Dr Gorge Adams, and I understand why.
Others (Stephen?) have complained about use of “Vagina” when refering to Regina Ip (who I cannot stand).
I swear, sometimes too much (if swearing is ever not too much). However, my swearing is spontaneous, in being oral, although no more acceptable for that. However some of the comments on here use adjectives/appelations that are simply unnecessary. I am sure I will be described as prudish, but terms such as Vagina or, as per Mr Woo above, the use of “twat” are unnecessary, add nothing to the point being made and are, at best , simply unnecessarilly coarse and crude. Maybe the users thereof could think and desist.
@dimuendo – I have little objection to crudity as such, but the Vagina reference has surely outlived its limited amusement value. As for twat, however, I think the word has moved away from its more vulgar origins to become a common term for, as Wikipedia’s exhaustive entry on the word suggests, “a person considered obnoxious or stupid” – exactly the meaning Mr. Woo gave it.