A letter (scroll down) in the South China Morning Post asks why the Communist Party can’t just be nice?
It’s a good question. The Chinese government’s attempts to rant and bludgeon Hong Kong into loving it are surely unworthy of the famous thousands-of-years-old civilization or a Party that claims to serve the people. The approach is, as the writer says, counterintuitive and counterproductive.
We could point out that the Leninist system is about gaining and holding absolute control through force. The underlying assumption is that the people don’t want to be run by a Communist dictatorship. (Unlike enlightened and smart Red revolutionaries, the masses are too downtrodden/brainwashed/dumb to understand. Otherwise, we could just hold an election…) The utopian ends will justify the violent means.
A problem is that, however brilliantly it succeeded with peasants in semi-feudal 1920s Russia and 1940s China, it doesn’t work on Hongkongers – on average far wealthier, better-educated and accustomed to a pluralistic society and rules-based order than the compatriots over the border.
And so the letter-writer’s question remains unanswered.
I can only hazard a guess: It would be easier to be nice, but being obnoxious is more fun.
I declare the weekend open with triple-fun – an ultra-in-depth update on Alibaba’s financials, this inspiring wonder of modern technology, and insightful words for politics and dialect fans from an Alabama hairdresser…
Name sounds like something from the top floor of the British Consulate. Real name Nigel or Rupert something.
Knock twice, wait for the green light, but maybe not as they may be playing ping pong with the latest MI6 and UK Government lines to take.
You do the stirrin’ and I’ll do the spreadin’.
For the weekend
Wang Zhenmin, the legal head of the Liaison Office, explained Hong Kong’s legal status. Referred to in Big Lychee’s post on Wednesday 6 December.
“Law Professor, deeply versed in China’s Legal Code,
I have come to guide you on the Patriotic Road.
The Principles of Chinese Law are explicated by me.”
Someone says, “Cor blimey.”
“After more than twenty years, it isn’t too hard, is it,
To learn about some major things which always were implicit;
Which, though fully understood, were never spelt out clearly.”
Someone says, “Oh, really?”
“Speaking with the legal insight of a Communist,
I see that Hong Kong’s Basic Law does not in fact exist
Unless it is a Law of China, neither more nor less.”
Someone says, “Oh, yes?”
“Loyally and legally, it may be truly said
Every year Hong Kong becomes a deeper shade of Red.
Legally, the Party and the State have always ruled.”
Someone says, “We were fooled.”
“Nothing new. In 1997 it was done,
And ever since, Dear Comrades, we regard you as a Son
Or Daughter of the Motherland, with so much love to give her.”
Someone says, “I beg to differ.”
It was Constitution Day (last Monday) that he spoke.
Someone says, “Constitution Day? Is that a joke?”
I thought his learned comments would be interesting to read.
Someone says, “Indeed.”
Is Shirley Yam still around or has she been disappeared?
Don’t read SCCCPMP enough…
Disappeared as in she was disappeared rather than she disappeared.
I could live with obnoxious, as Hong Kong has always had such people. But not with heavy-handed.