Tung Chee-hwa dies. The Economist says…
He had an impossible job, and did it badly.
Although mercilessly mocked while in office, old ‘Tofu-for-Brains’ will probably be remembered by Hong Kong’s handover-straddling generation as the least bad of post-1997 chief executives – so far. He wasn’t an arrogant civil servant devoid of policy ideas (though he was pushed around by them, and stumbled in implementing new ideas in housing and education). He wasn’t an ideologue or a chip-on-shoulder nationalist. He didn’t hate anyone, and (to the delight of tycoons) was something of a soft touch.
During the tough times of the Asian financial crisis and SARS, he fell into the trap of eagerly agreeing with detractors that Hong Kong was in a far greater mess than it really was. A skilled political player would have shown concern for citizens in genuine hardship, but mostly exhibited a relaxed confidence – which the fundamentals at the time warranted.
In this respect, Tung personified the most obvious shift in Hong Kong’s governance style post-97. The pre-handover leaders of the 80s and 90s (think Youde, Wilson, Patton and officials like Piers Jacobs or Libby Wong) looked at ease in trying to keep up with fast-growing public expectations of government, and displayed pride in the city and its people. From Tung onwards, it was constant panic and defensiveness – and ultimately closure of newspapers and jailing of critics.
HKFP on the HK Alliance sentencing…
Friday’s ruling said that the present case did not involve violence or the threat of violence, “nor had the defendant put forward any specific means of implementation or timetable” to end one-party rule in mainland China – one of the Alliance’s central tenets. Nevertheless, the court still found that the offence was “of a serious nature.”
From the Guardian…
The court found they had “incited other persons to organise, plan, commit or participate in acts by unlawful means with a view to subverting the state power”.
…The case had centred on a slogan that was used for decades by the Alliance: “end one-party dictatorship”. The court ruled that the defendants “intended to cause others to lose confidence in the Chinese Communist party by stirring up hostility and causing division”. The defence said that the Alliance was simply exercising its right to freedom of speech.
One supporter who attended the sentencing told the Guardian: “A demonstration that lasted for more than 35 years without any problem is suddenly being seen as subversion.”
They organized an annual gathering that was held for 30 years – after obtaining necessary police permission – expressing the opinion that China would be better off without a one-party system. Interesting that the most damning condemnation the NatSec judges could manage was to say the three intended to blah blah blah. The vigils and slogans had no impact on the CCP’s hold on power.
HKFP reports reactions of friends and foes of the Alliance. NatSec Police boss Steve Li believes the sentences prove the seriousness of the crime and rightly punish ‘obstinacy’…
“From the sentences handed down to the three, it can be seen that they are responsible for extremely serious offences,” Li said. “It was to be expected that Chow Hang-tung, who showed no remorse and was obstinate to the end, received the heaviest sentence.”