Christmas comes once every 365 days – but Hong Kong Chief Executive ‘elections’ happen just every four years. Hapless tools are today pretending to vote for someone pretending to run as the sole ‘candidate’. Along with the 7,000 police racking up a huge overtime bill today, we should cherish the strangeness of the moment like leap-year babies having a February 29 birthday. And let’s keep a special eye out for news media reporting the ‘result’ of the HK$228 million charade as if something real happened, other than the close of the final chapter of ‘One Country, Two Systems’.
HKFP compares John Lee’s social media campaign with those of his predecessors…
Even Lee’s most popular Facebook post – a response to Google’s termination of his YouTube channel in accordance with US sanctions – garnered only around 7,000 reactions, nearly half of which were “haha.”
People are puzzling over Lee’s ‘election rally’ English slogan ‘We and Us’. The two words are of course subject and object forms of the pronoun. The meaning, I surmise, is ‘You are all objects, and you are all subjects’.
(Interesting fact: in some languages, there are three words for ‘we/us’. One means ‘you and me and no-one else’. One means ‘all of us together here’. And one means ‘me and some other people but not you’.)
The Chinese version says ‘Me and Us’ – perhaps meaning ‘CE and subjects are all objects together (except yellow objects, which don’t count)’. Maybe. Or could the English ‘We’ simply be a mistranslation/typo of the Chinese ‘Me’? Or vice-versa? Having been sent off unenthusiastically by the Big Boss to briefly work on a past CE ‘election campaign’, I can confirm that the consultant and PR floozies involved are purely driven by the quick whatever-the-client-will-sign-off-on easy money donated by tycoons.
China Daily interviews shoe-shining useful barbarian idiots who are quoted as spouting meaningless inanities, like…
The electoral system had to change because it had been infiltrated by foreign forces seeking a Whitehall or US Congress system of governance. But every place is different, and one form does not fit all.
Did these poor schmucks realize that rather obviously scripted replies would be attributed to them? Would it be more pitiful if the answer to that question is ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
Some reading for the next day or two…
Stuck in hotel quarantine, David Webb is searching enforcement and regulatory bodies’ websites for reports of transgressions by members of the financial services sector. One lesson: you’d be better off buying shares in AIA than paying premiums for their life products.
China Media Project on the unwaveringly persistent Politburo Standing Committee’s reiteration of the need to comprehensively, resoundingly, indefatigably, resolutely double down on the latter-day ‘eliminate sparrows’ campaign. It seems ‘dynamic zero’ has become a loyalty/obedience test. The continuing re-locking-down in parts of Shanghai suggests that it is incentivizing local officials to care only about preventing outbreaks, and nothing about public welfare or the economy.
From China Digital Times, a transcript of a posted-then-censored phone call from an irate locked-down Shanghai resident…
Male resident: …My family can’t keep going like this, either. You’ve closed down all the shops, forcing us to buy from these so-called “licensed suppliers.” Then you blame the delivery workers for spreading the virus … What a load of nonsense. You’re just looking for excuses, looking for scapegoats. You lock down the whole city, and yet we’re still having an endless stream of new cases. Don’t you find that strange?
Officer: I do find it strange, to be honest.
A Harvard Business paper on the Emergence of Mafia-like Business Systems in China. Scroll down to sub-headings ‘Plunder’, Obfuscation’, ‘Mutual Endangerment’ and ‘Manipulation of Financial System’ for some juicy examples.
A mega-thread of Orson Welles talking shit. You would want the guy at a dinner party.